The children speak: An examination of the quality of life of pediatric cochlear implant users

Abstract

Objective-To examine the results of health-related quality of life questionnaire scores from profoundly deaf children fitted with at least one cochlear implant and compare responses to normal hearing age mates and to their parents.Study design-Cross sectional study utilizing a generic quality of life questionnaire designed to be completed by both parents and children independently of each other. Setting-Questionnaires completed at various summer camps designed for children with cochlear implants in Texas and Colorado.Subjects and Methods-Eighty-eight families from 16 states were divided in to two subgroups by age of cochlear implantation: an 8-11 year old group and one 12-16 year old group. The KINDL R Questionnaire for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents was distributed and participants completed the questionnaire independently from their participating family member.Results-CI users in both age groups scored similarly to their normal hearing peers and their parents. Younger CI users scored their family domain lower than their normal hearing peers. Teen CI users scored the school domain lower than their parents. Among CI participants, earlier implantation and longer cochlear implant use resulted in higher Quality of Life scores.Conclusion-Children with cochlear implants experience similar quality of life as normal hearing peers. Parents are reliable reporters on the status of their child's overall quality of life.

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review

“…Factors associated with poorer QoL outcomes included use of hearing aids (rather than a CI) [Meyer et al, 2013;Necula et al, 2013], shorter experience with an implant [Loy et al, 2010], older age at implantation [Necula et al, 2013;Schorr et al, 2009;Stacey et al, 2006;Warner-Czyz et al, 2011], additional developmental comorbidities [Sach and Barton, 2007;Edwards et al, 2012], male gender [Sach and Barton, 2007], lower auditory perception [Sach and Barton, 2007], lower parental educational level [Sach and Barton, 2007], and reduced oral communication by the child [FortunatoTavares et al, 2012].…”

“…Eight studies reported on generic health utility metrics, which included KINDL ® [Huber, 2005;Loy et al, 2010;Warner-Czyz et al, 2009, visual analog scale (VAS) [Clark et al, 2012;Sach and Barton, 2007], Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) [Clark et al, 2012], Child Health and Illness Profile (CHIP) child edition [Clark et al, 2012;Meserole et al, 2014], European Quality of Life Questionnaire in 5 domains (EQ5D) [Clark et al, 2012;Sach and Barton, 2007], Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [Spencer et al, 2012], and EuroQoL VAS [Sach and Barton, 2007]. A comprehensive review of these surveys is beyond the subject of the current paper and may be found elsewhere [Froberg and Kane, 1989;Zullig et al, 2010].…”

Cochlear Implants in Children: A Review

“…It has been suggested that unless their language skills match those of their hearing peers, children with cochlear implants cannot fully integrate into the hearing community and develop positive self-esteem (Crouch, 1997;Lane & Grodin, 1997). However, as with many recent outcomes for children with cochlear implants, more recent research has shown equivalent levels of self esteem in children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing (Loy et al, 2010;Martin et al, 2011;Sahli & Belgin, 2006).…”

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in paediatric otolaryngology

“…It gives a global health overview, and usefully has two forms: the parent proxy report form and the age-specific child self-report form. [49][50][51] Similarly, the KINDL-R questionnaire for measuring health-related QoL in children and adolescents, 60,61 the Child Health Questionnaire ('CHQ') 38,[54][55][56] and the Child Behavior Checklist ('CBCL') 20,21,62 are general patient-reported outcome measures that have different forms for various age groups. These tools have the benefit of age-appropriate questions, but their use would potentially limit comparison of the findings outside of that age group.…”