Convenience and short comings among paediatric cochlear implant candidates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20233362Keywords:
Audiologist, Combined Military Hospital, Chattogram, BangladeshAbstract
Background: Cochlear implants have revolutionized the treatment of severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in children. However, the convenience and shortcomings experienced by pediatric cochlear implant candidates in various settings remain understudied. This study aimed to assess the convenience and shortcomings among pediatric cochlear implant candidates in home, school, and other social settings.
Methods: This was a prospective clinical study that was conducted in the Cochlear Implant (CI) Center, Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Dhaka and Chattogram, Bangladesh from July 2015 to December 2022. A total of 200 parents of pediatric cochlear-implanted children were enrolled in this study as the study subjects. A simple random sampling technique was used in sample selection. All data were processed, analyzed, and disseminated by using MS Excel and SPSS version 22.0 program as per necessity.
Results: The study analyzed information collected during the study period, focusing on the convenience and shortcomings reported by the parents of cochlear implant recipients. The findings revealed that the highest level of convenience was reported in some other social settings (82.84%), followed by home (75.67%) and school (64.4%). In contrast, shortcomings were reported primarily in the home environment (63.6%), followed by school (34.6%) and other social settings (31.45%).
Conclusions: In the majority of cochlear implant children, convenience is observed in some other social settings than home or school. In the majority of cochlear implant children, shortcomings are observed in their homes.
References
Spencer PE, Marschark M. Cochlear Implants Issues and Implications. In: Marschark M, Spencer PE (Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education. New York: Oxford University Press;2003:434-448.
Hale M. An Exploratory Study of Identity Formation of Adolescents with Cochlear Implants. Unpublished raw data, Smith College School for Social Work, Northampton, MA. A project based upon an independent investigation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Social Work. 2004.
Christiansen JB, Leigh IW. Cochlear Implants in Children: Ethics and Choices. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press; 2002.
Gfeller KE, Olszewski C, Turner C, Gantz B, Oleson J. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiol Neurotol. 2006;11(Suppl. 1):12-5.
Clark G. The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people-a personal perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biolog Sci. 2006;361(1469):791-810.
Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature. 1991;352(6332):236-8.
Bell B. The psychological/social impact of cochlear implants." Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology; 2005.
Sennaroglu L, Saatci I. A new classification for cochleovestibular malformations. Laryngos. 2002;112(12):2230-41.
World Health Organization. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2001;79(4):373-4.
Voigt P, von dem Bussche A. Enforcement and fines under the GDPR. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Springer, Cham; 2017:201-217.
Chundu S, Manchaiah V, Stephens D, Kumar N. Parental reported benefits and shortcomings of cochlear implantation: Pilot study findings from Southeast Asia. Cochlear Impla Int. 2013;14(1):22-7.
Gfeller K, Olszewski C, Turner C, Gantz B, Oleson J. Music perception with cochlear implants and residual hearing. Audiol Neurotol. 2006; 11(1):12-5.
Zhao F, Bai Z, Stephens D. The relationship between changes in self-rated quality of life after cochlear implantation and changes in individual complaints. Clini Otolaryngol. 2008;33(5):427-34.
Kelsay DM, Tyler RS. Advantages and disadvantages expected and realized by pediatric cochlear implant recipients as reported by their parents. Otol Neurotol. 1996;17(6):866-73.
