Parent-perceived challenges related to the pediatric cochlear implantation process and support services received in South Africa

Bhamjee, Aaqilah; Roux, Talita le; Schlemmer, Kurt; Perold, J; Cass, Nicolize; Schroeder, Kelly; Schlesinger, Dani; Ceronio, D; Vinck, Bart

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109635

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to a study conducted in South Africa, the financial cost for the second implant procedure (91.7%) and the cost for the device maintenance (75.0%) were the most common barriers for the second surgery. 19 In addition, some parents do not have certainty for the second CI and do expect other rehabilitation methods that might be developed in the future. 20 Thus, even though physicians recommend bilateral surgeries, some patients and families decide to undergo unilateral CI only.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selection of the optimal first ear for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children

Kim

Gil

et al. 2021

Ear Nose Throat J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives When there is a difference in hearing on both ears, where to perform the first cochlear implantation (CI) becomes an important issue. The purpose of the study was to evaluate which ear should be chosen for the first implantation in sequential bilateral CI with a long inter-implant period. Methods The study population consisted of 34 severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss pediatrics with the inter-implant period of ≥3 years between the first CI (CI-1) and the second CI (CI-2) before the age of 19 (mean of inter-implant period: 7.1-year). The patients were classified into Group A (CI-1 was performed on the ear with better hearing), Group B (CI-1 on the ear with worse hearing), or Group C (symmetrical hearing in both ears). Speech intelligibility test results were compared between the groups. Results The monosyllabic word scores of CI-1 were excellent in Groups A (91.7±7.9%) and B (92.5±3.6%) but slightly lower in Group C (85.7±14.9%) before the second implantation ( P = .487). At 3 years after the second implantation, all groups demonstrated excellent scores in the bilateral CI condition (95.9±3.0% in Group A; 99.1±.8% in Group B; 97.5±2.9% in Group C, P = .600). However, when the patients were tested in using CI-2 only in Groups A and B after using bilateral CI for 3 years, the scores were inconsistent in Group A (79.6±23.9%; range: 22.2-94.4%), while those were higher and more constant in Group B (92.9±4.8%; 86.8-100.0%). Conclusions The first CI is strongly recommended to perform on a worse hearing ear if they had different hearing levels between ears. Even with the first CI on a worse hearing ear, its performance never deteriorates. In addition, if they receive the second CI several years later, it will be likely that the second one functions better.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Typically, the financial burden may be a reason. 18,19 However, although there was no financial burden, a few of parents refused to undergo bilateral surgeries for other reasons. 20 In such instances, more careful decision-making is necessary when planning the first CI (CI-1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of the optimal first ear for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children

Kim

Gil

et al. 2021

Ear Nose Throat J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In SA, recent reports have revealed significant delays in the age at paediatric cochlear implantation. [19,20] These delays are affected by the delayed diagnosis of hearing loss as well as delays between hearing loss diagnosis and eventual cochlear implantation. [19,20] The most significant factor contributing to delayed hearing loss diagnosis is the paucity of newborn hearing screening (NHS) programmes in SA.…”

Section: Cmementioning

confidence: 99%

“…[19,20] These delays are affected by the delayed diagnosis of hearing loss as well as delays between hearing loss diagnosis and eventual cochlear implantation. [19,20] The most significant factor contributing to delayed hearing loss diagnosis is the paucity of newborn hearing screening (NHS) programmes in SA. NHS is a viable means of reducing the burden of hearing loss and efficiently identifying serious childhood hearing problems when these problems can be treated most adequately.…”

Section: Cmementioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear implantation in South Africa (part 2)

Bhamjee

Mahomed-Ismail

Perold

et al. 2022

SAMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implantation is a timeous and cost-effective solution for severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and has transformed the lives of many individuals with significant hearing loss. The advent of cochlear implantation has meant that, for the first time, one of the senses (hearing), having been entirely lost, can be restored. The previous article in this series sketched the problem of severe-toprofound SNHL, and how cochlear implantation can overcome this, how a cochlear implant (CI) works, the history of cochlear implantation and the principles of the multidisciplinary CI team. The current status of cochlear implantation in South Africa (SA) is the subject of discussion in this article, the second of this two-part series on cochlear implantation. It comprises a study of the best available current data on the status of CI in SA.

show abstract

“…S evere-to-profound hearing loss in early childhood interferes with normal development of speech and language and had negative impact on child's education. 1 An ultimate outcome of cochlear implant (CI) is intelligible speech acquisition and language development. 2 A rating scale provides a feasible method to monitor patients over a long period of time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation and inter-rater reliability testing of the Arabic version of speech intelligibility rating among children with cochlear implant

Alshawi

Mesallam

Albakheet³

et al. 2020

SMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To validate and assess the reliability of the new version of an Arabic speech intelligibility rating among different raters. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis was carried out between December 2018 and January 2019. Thirty cochlear-implant (CI) children (study group) and 30 subjects (control group) were enrolled. Study candidates' speech skills were evaluated using the translated Arabic SIR by parents and original SIR by professions such as speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Inter-rater agreement, test-retest reliability, pre-and post-intervention score (responsiveness test), patient versus control score comparison (discriminant validity), and cross-validation of Arabic SIR have all been assessed. Results: There was a good sense of agreement between the post-operative SIR parents' assessments and the professional SLPs' assessments (r=0.920, p<0.001). The mean of study subjects pre-and post-implantation score of Arabic SIR showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.001). Conclusion: The Arabic SIR demonstrated excellent reliability with strong consistency. It showed its clinical ability in distinguishing healthy subjects from patients along with follow up of speech development skills over time. The Arabic SIR can be used by parents to evaluate post-CI progress of their children.

show abstract

Parent-perceived challenges related to the pediatric cochlear implantation process and support services received in South Africa

Cited by 16 publications

References 49 publications

Selection of the optimal first ear for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children

Selection of the optimal first ear for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children

Cochlear implantation in South Africa (part 2)

Validation and inter-rater reliability testing of the Arabic version of speech intelligibility rating among children with cochlear implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About