Cochlear Implant Decision Making for Children With Residual Hearing: Perspectives of Practitioners
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
PURPOSE: Cochlear implants (CIs) are increasingly considered for children with residual hearing who benefit from hearing aids (HAs). However, the decision-making process for families of these children and for practitioners is particularly challenging because there is no clear audiological cut point for CI candidacy. This study aimed to understand Canadian practitioners' perspectives of the CI decision-making process and how they guide families of children with residual hearing. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a total of 17 practitioners through four focus groups and one individual interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Data were organized into five broad domains: candidacy issues for children with residual hearing, practitioners' roles in decision support, additional considerations affecting decision making, factors facilitating decision making, and practitioners' needs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that practitioners' confidence in determining candidacy and supporting parents has increased due to their experiences with positive outcomes for these children. Practitioners indicated that there was a need for more research to guide the decision-making process.
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