Parental perspectives on decision-making and outcomes in pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Bilateral cochlear implantation is becoming standard care to improve outcomes for children with profound or severe to profound hearing loss. This study examined parents’ perceptions of the decision process and of the benefits of two implants. Design: The study adopted a qualitative approach, examining parents’ views through individual semi-structured interviews. Study sample: The participants consisted of the parents of 15 children at one centre in Ontario, Canada, where 26 children had received bilateral implants. Children ranged in age from 1.8 to 11.9 years and their experience with two implants ranged from 0.3 to 4.2 years. Results: Parents described decision-making as relatively straightforward. However, many parents shared concerns related to surgery. Primary reasons for choosing two implants were neuroplasticity, preference for a backup device, and maximizing potential through technology. Expected outcomes included better speech understanding in noise and the ability to locate the source of sounds. Perceived benefits of bilateral implantation included improved speech understanding in noise, the availability of a backup implant, and parents’ assurance that they had provided their children with the best possible access to hearing. Conclusions: Overall, parents were satisfied with the second implant and identified benefits that are not easily quantifiable through traditional clinical measures.SumarioObjetivo: La implantación coclear bilateral se está convirtiendo en un procedimiento estándar para mejorar los resultados en niños con problemas auditivos profundos, o entre severos y profundos. Este estudio examinó la percepción de los padres sobre el proceso de decisión y sobre los beneficios de dos implantes. Diseño: El estudio adoptó un enfoque cualitativo, para examinar los puntos de vista de los padres por medio de entrevistas individuales semi-estructuradas. Muestra de estudio: Participaron 15 padres de niños en un centro de Ontario, Canada, en el que habían sido implantados bilateralmente 26 niños. La edad de los niños varió de 1.8 a 11.9 años y su experiencia con dos implantes, de 0.3 a 4.2 años. Resultados: Los padres describen la toma de su decisión como relativamente sencilla. No obstante, muchos padres compartieron sus preocupaciones sobre la cirugía. Las razones fundamentales para seleccionar dos implantes fue la neuroplasticidad, la preferencia por un dispositivo de apoyo y la maximización del potencial a través de la tecnología. Los resultados esperados incluyeron la mayor comprensión del lenguaje en ruido y la habilidad para la localización de las fuentes sonoras. La percepción de beneficios de la implantación bilateral incluyó la mayor comprensión del lenguaje en ruido, la disponibilidad de un implante de apoyo y la seguridad de los padres de que han proporcionado a sus hijos la mayor posibilidad de acceso a la audición. Conclusiones: La impresión general es de que los padres están satisfechos con el segundo implante y que identificaron beneficios que no son fácilmente cuantificables por medio de las mediciones clínicas tradicionales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it