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 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".