Literature DB >> 29424766

Social Connectedness and Perceived Listening Effort in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Grounded Theory to Establish Content Validity for a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure.

Sarah E Hughes1,2, Hayley A Hutchings2, Frances L Rapport3, Catherine M McMahon4,5, Isabelle Boisvert4,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Individuals with hearing loss often report a need for increased effort when listening, particularly in challenging acoustic environments. Despite audiologists' recognition of the impact of listening effort on individuals' quality of life, there are currently no standardized clinical measures of listening effort, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). To generate items and content for a new PROM, this qualitative study explored the perceptions, understanding, and experiences of listening effort in adults with severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss before and after cochlear implantation.
DESIGN: Three focus groups (1 to 3) were conducted. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 participants from a cochlear implant (CI) center in the United Kingdom. The participants included adults (n = 15, mean age = 64.1 years, range 42 to 84 years) with acquired severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss who satisfied the UK's national candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation and their normal-hearing significant others (n = 2). Participants were CI candidates who used hearing aids (HAs) and were awaiting CI surgery or CI recipients who used a unilateral CI or a CI and contralateral HA (CI + HA). Data from a pilot focus group conducted with 2 CI recipients were included in the analysis. The data, verbatim transcripts of the focus group proceedings, were analyzed qualitatively using constructivist grounded theory (GT) methodology.
RESULTS: A GT of listening effort in cochlear implantation was developed from participants' accounts. The participants provided rich, nuanced descriptions of the complex and multidimensional nature of their listening effort. Interpreting and integrating these descriptions through GT methodology, listening effort was described as the mental energy required to attend to and process the auditory signal, as well as the effort required to adapt to, and compensate for, a hearing loss. Analyses also suggested that listening effort for most participants was motivated by a need to maintain a sense of social connectedness (i.e., the subjective awareness of being in touch with one's social world). Before implantation, low social connectedness in the presence of high listening effort encouraged self-alienating behaviors and resulted in social isolation with adverse effects for participant's well-being and quality of life. A CI moderated but did not remove the requirement for listening effort. Listening effort, in combination with the improved auditory signal supplied by the CI, enabled most participants to listen and communicate more effectively. These participants reported a restored sense of social connectedness and an acceptance of the continued need for listening effort.
CONCLUSIONS: Social connectedness, effort-reward balance, and listening effort as a multidimensional phenomenon were the core constructs identified as important to participants' experiences and understanding of listening effort. The study's findings suggest: (1) perceived listening effort is related to social and psychological factors and (2) these factors may influence how individuals with hearing loss report on the actual cognitive processing demands of listening. These findings provide evidence in support of the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening a heuristic that describes listening effort as a function of both motivation and demands on cognitive capacity. This GT will inform item development and establish the content validity for a new PROM for measuring listening effort.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29424766     DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  26 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.  Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global).

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Health-Related Quality of Life Changes Associated With Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Peter R Dixon; David Feeny; George Tomlinson; Sharon Cushing; Joseph M Chen; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 6.223

Review 4.  Listening-Related Fatigue in Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Fred H Bess; Hilary Davis; Stephen Camarata; Benjamin W Y Hornsby
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Normative Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global Scores for Experienced Cochlear Implant Users from a Multi-Institutional Study.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Shreya Chidarala; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 2.619

6.  Understanding Patient Expectations Before Implantation Using the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-Expectations Instrument.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Shreya Chidarala; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 8.961

7.  Validation of the Iowa Test of Consonant Perception.

Authors:  Jason Geller; Ann Holmes; Adam Schwalje; Joel I Berger; Phillip E Gander; Inyong Choi; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 2.482

8.  Validity and reliability of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global instruments in comparison to legacy instruments.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 July/Aug       Impact factor: 3.562

9.  Adults' cochlear implant journeys through care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Frances Rapport; Sarah E Hughes; Isabelle Boisvert; Catherine M McMahon; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Mona Faris; Mia Bierbaum
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-05-24       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 10.  Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Dorothea Wendt; Thomas Koelewijn; Stefanie E Kuchinsky
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.