Speech and language outcomes in mild-moderate unilateral sensorineural hearing loss

Mahomva, Chengetai; Kim, Anne; Lieu, Judith E. C.; Goldberg, Donald M.; Anne, Samantha

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110558

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was supported by the previous studies that found conductive hearing loss may not be a substantial risk factor for later speech and language development or academic achievement, 32 and no correlations between speech, language, and auditory function testing measures and pure tone averages thresholds. 33 This subject hearing improved from treatment during speech task force to 25 dB in the right ear and 28 dB in the left ear. Subanalysis without NU14 outcomes was a statistically significant reduction in the numbers of articulation errors at all levels: sentence, word, and screening (MD = 6, 95% CI = 4.5–8; MD = 3, 95% CI = 1.5–5; MD = 2, 95% CI = 1.5–2.5, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Speech Task Force and Quality of Life after Surgery in Children with Cleft Lip and Palate: Limitation of Professionals

Prathanee,

Thanawirattananit,

Surit

et al. 2024

Arch Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Shortage of speech and language therapists results in lack of speech services. The aims of this study were to find the effectiveness of a combination speech therapy model at Level IV: General speech and language pathologist (GSLP) and Level V: Specific speech and language pathologist (SSLP) in reduction of the number of articulation errors and promotion the quality of life (QoL) for children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L). Methods Fifteen children with CP ± L, aged 4 years 1 month to 10 years 9 months (median = 76 months; minimum:maximum = 49:129 months) were enrolled in this study. Pre- and post-assessment included oral peripheral examination; articulation tests via Articulation Screening Test, Thai Universal Parameters of Speech Outcomes for People with Cleft Palate, Hearing Evaluation, The World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief_Thai (WHOQOL-BRIEF-THAI) version questionnaire for QoL were performed. Speech therapy included a 3-day intensive speech camp by SSLP, five 30-minute speech therapy sessions by a GSLP, and five 1-day follow-up speech camps by SSLP that provided four 45-minute speech therapy sessions for each child. Results Post-articulation revealed statistically significant reduction of the numbers of articulation errors at word, sentence, and screening levels (median difference [MD] = 3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2–5; MD = 6, 95% CI = 4.5–8; MD = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.5–3, respectively) and improvement of QoL. Conclusion A speech task force consisting of a combination of Level IV: GSLP and Level V: SSLP could significantly reduce the number of articulation errors and promote QoL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Speech Task Force and Quality of Life after Surgery in Children with Cleft Lip and Palate: Limitation of Professionals

Prathanee,

Thanawirattananit,

Surit

et al. 2024

Arch Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2). These professionals may include but are not limited to a physician, audiologist, speech-language pathologist, teacher of the deaf, early intervention specialist in children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, and counselor/psychologist/social worker (Bathgate et al 2013; Martin & Raine 2013; Moeller et al 2013; Athalye et al 2015; Madell & Flexer 2019). The National Deaf Children’s Society and the British CI Group recommend a team of at least seven different professionals, with the possibility of more professional involvement based on the child’s unique situation (e.g., ophthalmologist, cardiologist) (Archbold et al 2015).…”

Section: Candidacy Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The caretaker(s) of the child are essential members of the CI team (Athalye et al 2015). The CI team should aim for timely, coordinated services among team members to maximize the chance that children with significant HL can reach their individual potential (Martin & Raine 2013; Athalye et al 2015). The rest of this document details the pediatric CI candidacy process.…”

Section: Candidacy Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Single-Sided Deafness • Many children with SSD struggle despite hearing aid or osseointegrated amplification. Children with unilateral HL have increased risk for speech, language, social, and academic difficulties (e.g., 10 times more likely to repeat a grade than peers with typical hearing) (Bess & Tharpe 1988;Kenworthy et al 1990;Tharpe 2008;Lieu et al 2012;Anne et al 2017;Mahomva et al 2021). Children with SSD receiving CIs show positive outcomes similar to adults (e.g., speech recognition in noise, localization, and confidence) compared with other technology options (e.g., contralateral routing of sound hearing aid, bone-anchored hearing aid) (Vlastarakos et al 2014;Friedmann et al 2016;Greaver et al 2017;Polonenko et al 2017;Sladen et al 2017a, b;Zeitler et al 2019), and the FDA recently approved implantation for children (≥5 years) with SSD (FDA, Reference Note 1) (Greaver et al 2017;Zeitler et al 2019).…”

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarizes the available evidence on pediatric cochlear implantation to provide current guidelines for clinical protocols and candidacy recommendations in the United States. Candidacy determination involves specification of audiologic and medical criteria per guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration. However, recommendations for a cochlear implant evaluation also should maintain flexibility and consider a child’s skill progression (i.e., month-for-month progress in speech, language, and auditory development) and quality of life with appropriately fit hearing aids. Moreover, evidence supports medical and clinical decisions based on other factors, including (a) ear-specific performance, which affords inclusion of children with asymmetric hearing loss and single-sided deafness as implant candidates; (b) ear-specific residual hearing, which influences surgical technique and device selection to optimize hearing; and (c) early intervention to minimize negative long-term effects on communication and quality of life related to delayed identification of implant candidacy, later age at implantation, and/or limited commitment to an audiologic rehabilitation program. These evidence-based guidelines for current clinical protocols in determining pediatric cochlear implant candidacy encourage a team-based approach focused on the whole child and the family system.

show abstract

“…Hearing problems can have a negative effect on language development and communication and may adversely affect school performance, cognitive and social skills, and it may also lead to unemployment or underemployment (18) . Even mild hearing impairment, which could remain unnoticed, may adversely impact speech and language development in children (19)(20)(21) . Data from the WHO show that the global yearly cost of unaddressed hearing impairment is 980 billion USA dollars (18) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Iodine status during child development and hearing ability: a systematic review

Dineva

Bath

2022

Br J Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Iodine, through the thyroid hormones, is required for the development of the auditory cortex and cochlea (the sensory organ for hearing). Deafness is a well-documented feature of endemic cretinism resulting from severe iodine deficiency. However, the range of effects of suboptimal iodine intake during auditory development on the hearing ability of children is less clear. We therefore aimed to systematically review the evidence for the association between iodine exposure (i.e., intake/status/supplementation) during development (i.e., pregnancy and/or childhood) and hearing outcomes in children. We searched PubMed and Embase and identified 330 studies, of which 13 were included in this review. Only three of the 13 studies were of low risk of bias or of good quality, this therefore limited our ability to draw firm conclusions. Nine of the studies (69%) were in children (one RCT, two non-RCT interventions and six cross-sectional studies) and four (31%) were in pregnant women (one RCT, one cohort study and two case reports). The RCT of iodine supplementation in mildly iodine-deficient pregnant women found no effect on offspring hearing thresholds. However, hearing was a secondary outcome of the trial and not all women were from an iodine-deficient area. Iodine supplementation of severely iodine-deficient children (in both non-RCT interventions) resulted in improved hearing thresholds. Five of six cross-sectional studies (83%) found that higher iodine status in children was associated with better hearing. The current evidence base for the association between iodine status and hearing outcomes is limited and further good-quality research on this topic is needed.

show abstract

Speech and language outcomes in mild-moderate unilateral sensorineural hearing loss

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Speech Task Force and Quality of Life after Surgery in Children with Cleft Lip and Palate: Limitation of Professionals

Speech Task Force and Quality of Life after Surgery in Children with Cleft Lip and Palate: Limitation of Professionals

American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children

Iodine status during child development and hearing ability: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About