Conventional Amplification for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

Jorgensen, Lindsey E.; Benson, Emily A.; McCreery, Ryan W.

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1670699

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(68 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, the majority of children in the CDaCI cohort exhibited language scores below average after 3 years of implantation. This is consistent with prior studies reporting that, although CIs are effective in improving auditory access and language development for children with severe-to-profound hearing loss, many children continue to perform below age expectations (1,43). Thus, our study sought to identify parenting factors that could potentially improve outcomes in children with CIs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Parenting Stress, Self-Efficacy, and Involvement: Effects on Spoken Language Ability Three Years After Cochlear Implantation

Mitchell

Barker

Sarangoulis

et al. 2021

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study evaluated associations among parenting stress, self-efficacy, and involvement in relation to spoken language outcomes in young children 3 years following cochlear implantation. Study Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Six university tertiary medical centers. Patients: One hundred sixty-four young children with bilateral, severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss who had 3 years of experience with a CI; children with substantial cognitive impairments were excluded from the study. Main Outcome Measures(s): Family Stress Scale (FSS), Scale of Parental Involvement and Self-Efficacy (SPISE), Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS). Results: Correlations were of moderate strength between FSS scores and SPISE scores (Parental Self-Efficacy, r ¼ À0.45, p < 0.01, Parental Involvement r ¼ À0.32, p < 0.01). As hypothesized, parents reporting higher levels of stress reported lower perceptions of self-efficacy and involvement. In addition, results showed that family stress had a direct, negative effect on spoken language (À4.43 [95% confidence interval: À6.97; À1.89]). After controlling for maternal education and activation age, parental selfefficacy mediated the negative effect between family stress and spoken language (indirect effect ¼ À1.91 [3.45; À0.69]; proportion mediated ¼ 0.43). No mediating effects were found for parental involvement. Conclusions: These findings highlight the need for parenting interventions that focus on reducing stressors and increasing parents' perceptions of self-efficacy in families of children using cochlear implants. Integration of mental health screening and tailored parenting interventions in CI clinics may increase parental self-efficacy and involvement, with measurable benefits in the child's use of spoken language.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Parenting Stress, Self-Efficacy, and Involvement: Effects on Spoken Language Ability Three Years After Cochlear Implantation

Mitchell

Barker

Sarangoulis

et al. 2021

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hearing loss is diverse, as it includes individuals with mild hearing loss who may not use any hearing device due to residual hearing, individuals who only use hearing devices in certain situations (i.e., school) or individuals with severe to profound hearing loss who undergo cochlear implantation. Thus, a generic hearing loss measure would not address the unique challenges of children with CIs and ignores the already identified differences between users of hearing aids and CIs, such as language delays, academic performance, and emotional functioning (Niparko et al 2010; Jorgensen et al 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although children with hearing loss all have some degree of sensory deprivation, the challenges of children using CIs are unique. Children with CIs have severe to profound hearing loss and in general experience more language delays and academic difficulties (Niparko et al 2010; Jorgensen et al 2018). The audiological management is also different, including frequency of appointments compared to children with mild or moderate hearing losses using hearing aids.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Life-CI: Development of an Early Childhood Parent-Proxy and Adolescent Version

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Severe to profound hearing loss is associated with communication, social, and behavioral difficulties that have been linked to worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared to individuals with normal hearing. HRQoL has been identified as an important health outcome that measures functional ability, particularly for chronic conditions and disabilities. The current study developed the QoL-cochlear implant (CI) for early childhood and adolescents using the recommended Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines on patient-reported outcomes. Design: Three phases of instrument development were conducted for both the early childhood (0 to 5 years old; parent proxy) and adolescent/young adult (13 to 22 years old) versions of the QoL-CI. Phase 1 included the development of our conceptual framework, which informed the discussion guides for stakeholder focus groups (e.g., audiologists, physicians, and therapists) at CI clinics in Miami and Philadelphia (n = 39). Open-ended interviews with parents (N = 18 for early childhood; N = 6 for adolescent/young adult version) and adolescents/young adults using CIs (n = 17) were then completed at both sites during phase 2. All interviews were transcribed and coded to identify common themes, which were then used to draft items for the QoL-CI. Both versions of the QoL-CI were developed using Qualtrics to allow for quick, easy electronic administration of the instruments on a tablet device. Last, phase 3 included cognitive testing in a new sample (N = 19 early childhood, N = 19 adolescent) to ensure that the draft instruments were clear, comprehensive, and easy to use. Results: Participant responses obtained via the open-ended interviews yielded an early childhood and adolescent version of the QoL-CI that was reportedly easy to complete and comprehensive. The final QoL-CI Early Childhood instrument yielded 35 questions across eight functional domains (environmental sounds, communication, social functioning, behavior, CI device management and routines, school, CI benefits, and early intervention). Similarly, the final QoL-CI adolescent/young adult version consisted of 46 items across eight domains (noisy environments, communication, CI usage and management, advocacy, social functioning, emotional functioning, acceptance, and independence). Conclusions: The QoL-CI is a condition-specific QoL instrument that can be used for children ages birth through 22 years. These instruments capture the “whole” child by not only focusing on communication and auditory skills but also academic, social and emotional functioning. Once validated, these CI-specific measures will enable providers to track long-term outcomes and evaluate the efficacy of new interventions to improve overall CI use and QoL for pediatric and young adult users.

show abstract

“… 93 With severe-to-profound hearing loss, use of conventional hearing aids is limited by a small dynamic range and potential for uncomfortable overamplification. 94 In children with diagnosed autosomal dominant forms of hearing loss, audioprofiles are a useful tool for prognostication. For example, a child born with a pathogenic variant in KCNQ4 would be expected to progress to a severe high frequency hearing loss between 20 and 40 years of age.…”

Section: Hearing Amplification and Cochlear Implantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Future directions for screening and treatment in congenital hearing loss

Thorpe

Smith

2020

Precision Clinical Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing loss is the most common neurosensory deficit. It results from a variety of heritable and acquired causes and is linked to multiple deleterious effects on a child's development that can be ameliorated by prompt identification and individualized therapies. Diagnosing hearing loss in newborns is challenging, especially in mild or progressive cases, and its management requires a multidisciplinary team of healthcare providers comprising audiologists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists and genetic counselors. While physiologic newborn hearing screening has resulted in earlier diagnosis of hearing loss than ever before, a growing body of knowledge supports the concurrent implementation of genetic and cytomegalovirus testing to offset the limitations inherent to a singular screening modality. In this review, we discuss the contemporary role of screening for hearing loss in newborns as well as future directions in its diagnosis and treatment.

show abstract

Conventional Amplification for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

Cited by 8 publications

References 63 publications

Parenting Stress, Self-Efficacy, and Involvement: Effects on Spoken Language Ability Three Years After Cochlear Implantation

Parenting Stress, Self-Efficacy, and Involvement: Effects on Spoken Language Ability Three Years After Cochlear Implantation

Quality of Life-CI: Development of an Early Childhood Parent-Proxy and Adolescent Version

Future directions for screening and treatment in congenital hearing loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About