Quality of life after intervention with a cochlear implant or hearing aid

Abstract

Objective To investigate the impact of hearing aid and cochlear implant use on quality of life in adults. Study Design Prospective observational cohort study. Methods 113 adults aged ≥50 years with post-lingual hearing loss receiving routine clinical care at a tertiary academic medical center were evaluated with the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 before and 6 and 12 months after intervention with hearing aids or cochlear implants. Change in score was assessed using linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, gender, education, and history of hypertension, diabetes, and smoking. Results A significant increase in mental component summary score was observed in both hearing aid and cochlear implant users from baseline to 12 months, with cochlear implant users increasing nearly twice that of hearing aid users (hearing aid: 2.49 [95% confidence interval 0.11, 4.88], P =.041; cochlear implant: 4.20 [95% confidence interval 1.85, 6.55], P <.001). The most substantial increases were observed in individuals with the lowest baseline scores. There was no significant difference in physical component summary score from baseline to 12 months. Conclusions Treatment of hearing loss with hearing aids and cochlear implants results in significant increases in mental health quality of life. The majority of the increase is observed by 6 months post-treatment and we observed differential effects of treatment depending on the level of baseline quality of life score with the greatest gains observed in those with the lowest scores.

Change in loneliness after intervention with cochlear implants or hearing aids

“…Cochlear implants could improve loneliness through several mechanisms. The observed reduction in loneliness symptoms could be the product of improvements in quality of life, 24,33 depression, 34 and speech understanding 35 after cochlear implantation. Demographics 24 and cardiovascular health 33 have been shown to impact the association of hearing loss with numerous outcomes.…”

“…The observed reduction in loneliness symptoms could be the product of improvements in quality of life, depression, and speech understanding after cochlear implantation. Demographics and cardiovascular health have been shown to impact the association of hearing loss with numerous outcomes. For this reason, our statistical models were adjusted for age, gender, race, and education, as well as history of hypertension, diabetes, and smoking.…”

“…The design and methods of the SMART Study have been described previously . We recruited patients from the Johns Hopkins Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (Baltimore, MD) who presented for evaluation for HAs or CIs from 2011 to 2014.…”

“…The design and methods of the SMART Study have been described previously. 24 We recruited patients from the Johns Hopkins Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (Baltimore, MD) who presented for evaluation for HAs or CIs from 2011 to 2014. Patients who fulfilled the following criteria were eligible for the study: 1) 50 years of age, 2) Englishspeaking, 3) receiving a hearing aid for the first time (or < 1 hour/ day of prior use) or receiving a first CI, 4) diagnosed with postlingual hearing loss (i.e., onset of impairment after the acquisition of speech and language), and 5) aural-oral verbal communication as primary communication modality.…”

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

“…The prevalence of HA use amongst those with hearing loss ranges from 14.2% to 33.1% [8][9][10] and the uptake of CIs is 10% or less of the people who clinically need them in adult populations globally [11]. The welldocumented benefits of hearing devices include improved hearing ability, improved sound quality, and enhanced quality of life [12][13][14][15]. One important barrier to uptake is the paucity of high-quality, accessible, clinical evidence of the viability or effectiveness of HAs compared to CIs.…”