Cochlear implant decision-making for children with residual hearing: Perspectives of parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) decision-making is particularly challenging for families of children who have residual hearing. Parents of these children may be uncertain about whether the potential benefits of CIs outweigh the risks. This study aimed to understand parents' decisional needs during the decision-making process for children with residual hearing. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of 11 children who had received CIs. Open-ended questions were asked to encourage parents to share their experiences about the decision-making process, their values/preferences, and their needs. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Data were organized according to three key themes: (1) Parents' decisional conflict, (2) values and preferences, (3) decision support and parents' needs. We found that overall parents were satisfied with their decision-making process and the decision support from practitioners. However, parents stressed the importance of receiving more personalized information that considers their specific concerns, values and preferences related to family's circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Our research provides additional evidence to guide the CI decision-making process for children with residual hearing. Additional collaborative research with audiology and decision-making experts specifically on facilitating shared decision-making is needed to provide better decision coaching for these families.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".