Quality of life (QoL) evaluation of children using cochlear implants: agreement between pediatric and parent proxy-QoL reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Cochlear implants are known to significantly improve the quality of life (QoL) of implanted children. However, variability exists between self-reported outcomes and parental-reported QoL questionnaires. We evaluated the QoL agreement between children and their parents following cochlear implantation and determined which factors lead to increased agreement.Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed including pediatric cochlear implant recipients and their parents. We evaluated postoperative QoL using The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). To assess agreement between pediatric and parental QoL perception, PedsQL intra-class correlations (ICCs) were calculated.Results: Thirty-five children and their parents completed QoL questionnaires. Children who were evaluated between 8–12 years of age reported highest absolute total and subscale PedsQL scores. Highest agreement was found amongst parents and children when: (1) children were between 8–12 years at QoL assessment (ICC: between 0.917[95%CI: 0.676–0.981] and 0.972[95%CI: 0.882–0.994]), and (2) when evaluating the physical health QoL domain (ICC: 0.964[95%CI: 0.849–0.992]).Conclusions: This study demonstrates high agreement (ICC > 0.8) between pediatric and parental QoL report in children aged between 8–12 years at QoL assessment. Therefore, results confirm that: (1) QoL agreement between pediatric self-report and parent proxy-report is high in chronically ill children and (2) children using cochlear implants can reliably report QoL between 8–12 years.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".