Literature DB >> 28776711

Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things?

Aaron C Moberly1, Michael S Harris1, Lauren Boyce1,2, Kara Vasil1, Taylor Wucinich1,2, David B Pisoni3, Jodi Baxter2, Christin Ray2, Valeriy Shafiro4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Current clinical outcome measures for adults receiving cochlear implants (CIs) consist of word and sentence recognition, primarily under quiet conditions. However, these measures may not adequately reflect patients' CI-specific quality of life (QOL). This study first examined traditional auditory-only speech recognition measures and other potentially relevant auditory measures as correlates of QOL in CI users. Second, scores on nonauditory tasks of language and cognition were examined as potential predictors of QOL. STUDY
DESIGN: Twenty-five postlingually deafened adults with CIs were assessed.
METHODS: Participants completed a validated CI-specific QOL measure (the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire) and were tested for word and sentence recognition in quiet, as well as sentence recognition in speech-shaped noise. Participants also completed assessments of audiovisual speech recognition, environmental sound identification, and a task of complex auditory verbal processing. Several nonauditory language and cognitive tasks were examined as potential predictors of QOL.
RESULTS: Quality-of-life scores significantly correlated with scores for audiovisual speech recognition and recognition of complex sentences in quiet but not sentences in noise or isolated words. No significant correlations were obtained between QOL and environmental sound identification or complex auditory verbal processing. Quality-of-life subdomain scores were predicted by several nonauditory language and cognitive tasks as well as some patient characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Postoperative measures of recognition of sentences in quiet and audiovisual sentence recognition correlate with CI-related QOL. Findings suggest that sentence recognition tasks are QOL-relevant outcomes but only explain a small fraction of the variability in QOL outcomes for this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:959-966, 2018.
© 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implants; cognition; quality of life; speech perception

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28776711      PMCID: PMC6192249          DOI: 10.1002/lary.26791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  31 in total

1.  Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire.

Authors:  J B Hinderink; P F Krabbe; P Van Den Broek
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Cochlear implantation in the elderly: results and quality-of-life assessment.

Authors:  Hamid R Djalilian; Timothy A King; Sharon L Smith; Samuel C Levine
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.547

3.  The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life: the role of audiologic performance and variables.

Authors:  Anke Hirschfelder; Stefan Gräbel; Heidi Olze
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.497

4.  Health-Related Quality of Life in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Descriptive Observational Study.

Authors:  Ángel Ramos-Macías; Juan Carlos Falcón González; Silvia A Borkoski-Barreiro; Ángel Ramos de Miguel; David Simón Batista; Daniel Pérez Plasencia
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Subjective benefits reported by adult Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant users.

Authors:  B S Kou; D B Shipp; J M Nedzelski
Journal:  J Otolaryngol       Date:  1994-02

6.  Effect of pneumococcal vaccination on quality of life in children with recurrent acute otitis media: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Carole N M Brouwer; A Rianne Maillé; Maroeska M Rovers; Reinier H Veenhoven; Diederick E Grobbee; Elisabeth A M Sanders; Anne G M Schilder
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 7.  Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  James M Gaylor; Gowri Raman; Mei Chung; Jounghee Lee; Madhumathi Rao; Joseph Lau; Dennis S Poe
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 6.223

8.  Which ear should we choose for cochlear implantation in the elderly: The poorer or the better? Audiometric outcomes, quality of sound, and quality-of-life results.

Authors:  Luis Lassaletta; Miryam Calvino; Isabel Sánchez-Cuadrado; Rosa M Pérez-Mora; Javier Gavilán
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 1.494

9.  Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users?

Authors:  Natalie R Capretta; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Toward a Nonspeech Test of Auditory Cognition: Semantic Context Effects in Environmental Sound Identification in Adults of Varying Age and Hearing Abilities.

Authors:  Valeriy Shafiro; Stanley Sheft; Molly Norris; George Spanos; Katherine Radasevich; Paige Formsma; Brian Gygi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  15 in total

1.  Development of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Item Bank.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures.

Authors:  James R Dornhoffer; Ted A Meyer; Judy R Dubno; Theodore R McRackan
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  How Does Quality of Life Relate to Auditory Abilities? A Subitem Analysis of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kara J Vasil; Jessica Lewis; Terrin Tamati; Christin Ray; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  "Product" Versus "Process" Measures in Assessing Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Irina Castellanos; Kara J Vasil; Oliver F Adunka; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Association of Demographic and Hearing-Related Factors With Cochlear Implant-Related Quality of Life.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 6.223

6.  Explaining Speech Recognition and Quality of Life Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Complementary Contributions of Demographic, Sensory, and Cognitive Factors.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Skidmore; Kara J Vasil; Shuman He; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.619

7.  Assessing Cognitive Abilities in High-Performing Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Jake Hillyer; Elizabeth Elkins; Chantel Hazlewood; Stacey D Watson; Julie G Arenberg; Alexandra Parbery-Clark
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Correlation between subjective and objective hearing tests after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Geerte G J Ramakers; Yvette E Smulders; Alice van Zon; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Wilko Grolman; Inge Stegeman
Journal:  BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord       Date:  2017-11-28

9.  Patient Benefit Following Bimodal CI-provision: Self-reported Abilities vs. Hearing Status.

Authors:  Elisabeth Wallhäusser-Franke; Tobias Balkenhol; Svetlana Hetjens; Nicole Rotter; Jerome J Servais
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 4.003

10.  Benefits of Cochlear Implantation in Middle-Aged and Older Adults.

Authors:  Christiane Völter; Lisa Götze; Imme Haubitz; Stefan Dazert; Jan Peter Thomas
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 4.458

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.