Advertisement

Measures of Comparative Behavior in Hearing Loss Patients with Cochlear Implant: Caretaker Assessment

  • Jarinratn Sirirattawan
  • Kitsarawut Khuancharee
Original Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess comparative behavior domain in patients with cochlear implants, using caretaker assessment. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Of 106 patients with hearing loss and receiving cochlear implants were included along with their caretakers. The caretaker’ perspective questionnaire-22 was implemented covering emotions, education, and social relationships domain. A repeated measure ANOVA was used to statistical analysis. The implantation elicited a slight reduction in emotions scores domain as well as slight increase in social relationships scores from pre-cochlear implants to 12 months in all aged (6–10 years: − 10.7, 95%CI − 8.4 to 12.9; 4.2, 95%CI 3.0–5.5, 11–20 years: − 8.6, 95%CI − 6.7 to 10.5; 2.5, 95%CI 1.6–3.3, 21–59 years: − 6.8, 95%CI − 4.9 to 8.6; 2.0, 95%CI 1.3–2.7, and older 60 years: − 12.1, 95%CI − 9.5 to 14.6; 3.6, 95%CI 2.7–4.5, respectively). However, the education scores domain has slight increase only in aged 21–59 years group (1.8, 95%CI 0.7–2.8). A long-term after cochlear implants (12 months), but not after only 6 months elicits a statistically significant increase the social relationships scores and the reduction in negative emotions scores in all aged at implantation. However, the education scores have slight increase only in aged 21–59.

Keywords

Caretaker assessment Cochlear implant Emotions scores Education scores Social relationships scores 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all the patients and families who kindly participated in this study. The strategic wisdom and research institute, and the research faculty of medicine, Srinakharinwirot University for their kindness supporting, time and assistance during the study. The authors wish to thank the MSMC in approval a grant to J.S.

Authors’ Contributions

JS wrote the proposal to apply a grant, designed the study, screened and examined all the recruited subjects, researched data, and reviewed the manuscript. KK Analyzed data and performed the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. Both of JS and KK are the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Funding

This study has received financial support from the MSMC (Grant Number 606/2015).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12070_2018_1574_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, McMenomey SO (2012) Cochlear implantation: current and future device options. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 45(1):221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cosetti MK, Waltzman SB (2011) Cochlear implants: current status and future potential. Expert Rev Med Devices 8(3):389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marangos N, Laszig R (1998) Cochlear implants. Prosthetic management of deafness at the turn of the century. HNO 46(1):12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holt RF, Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon M (2011) Assessing multimodal spoken word-in-sentence recognition in children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 54(2):632–657.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0148) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yorgun M, Surmelioglu O, Tuncer U, Tarkan O, Ozdemir S, Cekic E, Cetik F, Kiroglu M (2015) Quality of life in pediatric cochlear implantations. J Int Adv Otol 11(3):218–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colletti L, Shannon RV, Colletti V (2014) The development of auditory perception in children after auditory brainstem implantation. Audiol Neurotol 19(6):386–394.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000363684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashemi SB, Monshizadeh L (2016) Comparison of auditory perception in cochlear implanted children with and without additional disabilities. Iran J Med Sci 41(3):186–190Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fortunato-Tavares T, Befi-Lopes D, Bento RF, Andrade CR (2012) Children with cochlear implants: communication skills and quality of life. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Volleth N, Hast A, Lehmann EK, Hoppe U (2018) Subjective improvement of hearing through cochlear implantation. HNO 22(10):018–0529Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Contrera KJ, Betz J, Li L, Blake CR, Sung YK, Choi JS, Lin FR (2016) Quality of life after intervention with a cochlear implant or hearing aid. Laryngoscope 126(9):2110–2115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brüggemann P, Szczepek AJ, Klee K, Gräbel S, Mazurek B, Olze H (2017) In patients undergoing cochlear implantation, psychological burden affects tinnitus and the overall outcome of auditory rehabilitation. Front Hum Neurosci 11:226.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olze H, Knopke S, Grabel S, Szczepek AJ (2016) Rapid positive influence of cochlear implantation on the quality of life in adults 70 years and older. Audiol Neurootol 1:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Looi V, Lee ZZ, Loo JH (2016) Hearing-related quality of life outcomes for Singaporean children using hearing aids or cochlear implants. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software. Release 13 edn. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiefferink CH, Rieffe C, Ketelaar L, De Raeve L, Frijns JH (2013) Emotion understanding in deaf children with a cochlear implant. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 18(2):175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Punch R, Hyde M (2011) Social participation of children and adolescents with cochlear implants: a qualitative analysis of parent, teacher, and child interviews. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 16(4):474–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mikic B, Miric D, Nikolic-Mikic M, Ostojic S, Asanovic M (2014) Age at implantation and auditory memory in cochlear implanted children. Cochlear Implants Int 15(1):000000000191Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruijnzeel H, Ziylan F, Stegeman I, Topsakal V, Grolman W (2016) A systematic review to define the speech and language benefit of early (< 12 months) pediatric cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurootol 21(2):113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bollard PM, Chute PM, Popp A, Parisier SC (1999) Specific language growth in young children using the CLARION cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 177:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Razafimahefa-Raoelina T, Farinetti A, Nicollas R, Triglia JM, Roman S, Anderson L (2016) Self- and parental assessment of quality of life in child cochlear implant bearers. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(1):31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Medical CenterSrinakharinwirot UniversityNakornnayokThailand

Personalised recommendations