Background The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the lives of countless members of the general population. Older adults are known to experience loneliness, age discrimination, and excessive worry. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that they would experience greater negative outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased isolation and risk for complications than younger adults. Objective This study aims to synthesize the existing research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults. The secondary objective is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. Methods A rapid review of the published literature was conducted on October 6, 2020, through a search of 6 online databases to synthesize results from published original studies regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults. The Human Development Model conceptual framework–Disability Creation Process was used to describe and understand interactions between personal factors, environmental factors, and life habits. Methods and results are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement. Results A total of 135 records were included from the initial search strategy of 13,452 individual studies. Of these, 113 (83.7%) studies were determined to be of level 4 according to the levels of evidence classification by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The presence of psychological symptoms, exacerbation of ageism, and physical deterioration of aged populations were reported in the included studies. Decreased social life and fewer in-person social interactions reported during the COVID-19 pandemic were occasionally associated with reduced quality of life and increased depression. Difficulties accessing services, sleep disturbances, and a reduction of physical activity were also noted. Conclusions Our results highlight the need for adequate isolation and protective measures. Older adults represent a heterogeneous group, which could explain the contradictory results found in the literature. Individual, organizational, and institutional strategies should be established to ensure that older adults are able to maintain social contacts, preserve family ties, and maintain the ability to give or receive help during the current pandemic. Future studies should focus on specific consequences and needs of more at-risk older adults to ensure their inclusion, both in public health recommendations and considerations made by policy makers.

This study examined receptive and expressive vocabulary and grammar achievement of French-speaking children (n = 27) who received a cochlear implant (CI) between the age of 1 and 2. Standardized measures of language achievement were administered and the language levels attained by children with CIs were compared with that of the normative sample of same-age hearing peers for each measure. As a group, children exhibited language levels within normal limits in all standardized language measures. Examination of individual patterns revealed four different language profiles ranging from normal language levels in all domains to general language delay. Half the participants displayed language levels on par with similar-age peers at the word level; less than half the children obtained average performance at the sentence level. In three of these profiles, comprehension of sentences was impaired. Moreover, the age at implantation was not associated with language achievement. Findings suggest that receiving a CI between the age of 1 and 2 years does not ensure that language abilities will be within normal limits after up to 6 years of experience with the implant.

Purpose The increasing prevalence of pediatric cochlear implantation over the past 25 years has left little doubt that resulting improvements in hearing offer significant benefits to language development for many deaf children. Furthermore, given the documented importance of access to language from birth, there has been strong support for providing congenitally deaf children with implants as early as possible. Earliest implantation, in many ways, has become the “gold standard” in pediatric cochlear implantation, on the assumption that it is the key to language development similar to that of hearing children. Empirical evidence to support this assumption, however, appears more equivocal than generally is believed. This article reviews recent research aimed at assessing the impact of age at implantation on vocabulary and grammatical development among young implant users. Method Articles published between 2003 and 2018 that included age at implantation as a variable of interest and in which it was subjected to statistical analysis were considered. Effect sizes were calculated whenever possible; we conducted a multivariate meta-analysis to compare outcomes in different language domains. Results Taken together, findings from 49 studies suggest that age at implantation is just one of a host of variables that influence vocabulary and grammatical development, its impact varying with several factors including whether age at implantation is treated as a dichotomous or continuous variable. Results from a meta-analysis showed significant differences across language domains. Conclusion The pattern of results obtained indicates the importance of considering various child, family, and environmental characteristics in future research aimed at determining how early “early implantation” needs to be and the extent to which age at implantation, duration of implant use, and other factors influence language and language-related outcomes. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9789041

CI benefits are mostly subjective in this particular population: descriptive and qualitative approaches allow us to obtain a nuanced portrait of their experience and provide us with important elements that are not easily measurable with tests and scores.

Purpose Age at cochlear implantation frequently is assumed to be a key predictor of pediatric implantation benefits, but outcomes related to learning and cognition appear inconsistent. This critical assessment examines relevant literature in an effort to evaluate the impact of age at implantation in those domains for individuals who received their devices as children. Method We examined 44 peer-reviewed articles from 2003 to 2018 considering age at implantation and conducted statistical analyses regarding its impact on several domains, including literacy, academic achievement, memory, and theory of mind. Results Across 167 assessments in various experiments and conditions, only 21% of the analyses related to age at implantation yielded evidence in favor of earlier implantation, providing greater benefits to academic achievement, learning, or cognition compared to implantation later in childhood. Among studies that considered cognitive processing (e.g., executive function, memory, visual–spatial functioning), over twice as many analyses indicated significant benefits of earlier implantation when it was considered as a discrete rather than a continuous variable. Conclusion Findings raise methodological, practical, and theoretical questions concerning how “early” is defined in studies concerning early cochlear implantation, the impact of confounding factors, and the use of nonstandard outcome measures. The present results and convergent findings from other studies are discussed in terms of the larger range of variables that need to be considered in evaluating the benefits of cochlear implantation and question the utility of considering age at implantation as a “gold standard” with regard to evaluating long-term outcomes of the procedure as a medical treatment/intervention for hearing loss. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8323625

Our results indicate that the combined body of evidence in support of aural rehabilitation for older adults with hearing loss is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions. We identify a need for more rigorous research to guide clinical decision-making.

No abstract

No abstract