Patient and Parent Decision-Making in the Setting of Chemotherapy-Induced Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Children with malignancies may be exposed to ototoxic therapies resulting in sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). There is no consensus as to when intervention with amplification is necessary due to a variety of factors such as disease status, speech and language development, perceived difficulty with communication, and limitations of technology to fit these challenging losses. The decision to proceed with amplification after cancer can be difficult for patients and families. The purpose of this study is (1) to understand the decision-making (DM) process of childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) with SNHL and their parents and (2) to identify their decisional needs. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews guided by the Ottawa's decision support framework were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inclusion criteria were CCSs ages 8 to 30 years old with a Chang grade >1b SNHL and off-therapy; parents of this group were also eligible. Patients with active disease were excluded. Prompts inquired of sources of decisional conflict, role in DM, and DM behaviors. Inductive content analysis of the narrative qualitative data was used. RESULTS: Seven parents of CCSs and 6 CCSs participated. Themes in the CCS group included: (1) making sense of ototoxic SNHL; (2) desiring personalized education and treatment of SNHL; (3) playing an active role in the joint DM process; and (4) accepting hearing aids requires time and effort. The parent group shared the first and last theme with the CCS group and had two unique themes: (1) needing experts to respect the individual's journey to SNHL acceptance and (2) moving past the cancer experience to acceptance. Parents more often framed their DM within the context of already experiencing the trauma of cancer, whereas CCSs did not. One parent said, "You see all the rubble and you've lived through the devastation of the storm, but now you got to figure out what's broken." CCSs expressed bodily concerns regarding amplification, such as discomfort to the ear and difficulty in adjusting to the volume. The following needs were identified: early, re-enforced education regarding late effects risks; open communication among providers, CCSs, and parents; and audiogram result interpretations in patient- and parent-friendly language. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the DM process from the CCS and parent's perspectives should be considered when providing counseling for hearing amplification in the setting of cancer-related SNHL. Earlier and consistent delivery of late effects education, open communication regarding risk for SNHL, and improved delivery of audiogram results should be targets for meeting unmet needs. These findings should inform the development of decision aids to reduce decisional conflict in this population.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".