MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3023645213 · doi:10.1097/01.hj.0000666432.39666.20

Factors Affecting Quality of Life in Adolescent CI Users

2020· article· en· W3023645213 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margarita Hofmann

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Hearing Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAudiologistQuality of life (healthcare)Affect (linguistics)Socioeconomic statusCochlear implantAudiologyCognitionPsychologyHearing lossMedicineCochlear implantationDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPopulationNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is well known that early cochlear implantation at a young age leads to better speech and language development outcomes in children with hearing loss, thanks to the large volume of dedicated research on the subject.1-3 What remains unclear is how the advantages from early implantation translate into better social and communication skills and, ultimately, improved quality of life in adolescence. Many studies have attempted to elucidate that connection but yielded conflicting results with quite a bit of variability among their subjects with cochlear implants (CIs), said Margarita Hofmann, AuD, a clinical audiologist at McMaster Children's Hospital, which is part of Hamilton Health Services in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. “Some studies found that quality of life [QoL] did not differ significantly between children with CIs and children with normal hearing, while other studies determined difficulties in certain aspects of QoL, including peer acceptance, social-emotional adjustment, and self-esteem relative to hearing peers,” she said. “This variability in results was attributed, in part, to various factors that have been found to impact performance with a CI, such as age at implant, mode of communication, and cognitive factors, but which were never formally researched.” Given that the benefits of early implantation are already well documented, Hofmann and her colleagues decided to control for the age of implant to take a closer look at other factors that could affect the quality of life outcome of adolescent CI users, including socioeconomic status (SES) and communication methodology, in their research.4 Their study included only adolescents who received a CI prior to the age of 5, a total of 43 subjects, and excluded children who demonstrated factors known to negatively impact performance, such as cognitive, visual, or developmental delay. Hofmann and her colleagues zeroed in on adolescents because while many studies have established that the age at implantation is a significant factor in determining the benefits that young children receive from CIs, few have followed up with their subjects to see how these young CI recipients were coping in adolescence. Another reason they wanted to study this population is that superior social competence and peer relationships in adolescents have been shown to correlate with a better quality of life.5,6 “As we know, adolescence is a challenging time for anyone, let alone someone with a disability or handicap,” Hofmann said. “We wanted to know, for example, do these individuals feel that they are bullied? Do they feel that they struggle to make friends? What is their perception of their relationship with their parents? Overall, we were interested to know if these adolescent cochlear implant users perceived that they were treated differently from their hearing peers, and how this affected their overall well-being, and what factors contributed to these outcomes.” Hofmann and her colleagues compared the demographic information, word and sentence recognition scores, Quality of Life of Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Youth scores, and Kidscreen-10 Index scores of adolescent CI users in the low SES group (enrolled in a Medicaid plan) and mid-high SES group (not enrolled in a Medicaid plan), and found that those in the low SES category were faced with more challenges in terms of social issues. “The group of adolescents in the lower SES group reported feeling bullied more, feeling like their hearing loss impedes their future, and that they are less likely to ask for help when needed,” Hofmann said. Adolescent CI users in the low SES group also scored significantly poorer on measures of sentence recognition than members of the high SES group. Hofmann and her colleagues hypothesized that the differences may be attributed to a lower level of parental education, poor follow-up patterns, an impoverished language environment, and reduced linguistic exposure, all of which may lead to reduced outcomes with a CI. Despite these negative outcomes, adolescent CI users in the study rated their overall health and well-being significantly greater than those of their normal-hearing peers, based on a comparison of the mean score obtained for the study participants and the normative data provided by the Kidscreen manual. “Again, the adolescents included in our study were implanted before the age of 5 and the results of our study reflect a select sample of adolescents with CI,” Hofmann said. “Nonetheless, this was an encouraging finding and warrants further research.” Knowledge of the factors that influence overall language skills and perceived QoL in adolescents with a CI is of practical importance for parents and caregivers, for clinicians, and for formulating plans of early intervention and appropriate support, Hofmann said. “The examination of communication outcomes, along with other factors that influence QoL, such as SES and communication methodology, will help clinicians identify children at risk for low QoL,” she said. “Such identification will help generate appropriate referrals to enhance QoL and optimize long-term language growth in adolescent CI users.” These findings can also serve as a great counselling tool for parents debating cochlear implantation for their child, said Hofmann. “The results of our study can help to guide parents in the decision-making process, which will ultimately have life-long effects,” she said.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,547
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,444

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,263
Tête enseignante GPT0,368
Écart entre enseignants0,105 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Hearing JournalMême sujetHearing Loss and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207