Satu Kristiina Turunen-Taheri1,2, Margareta Edén3, S Hellström4,5, Per-Inge Carlsson6,7,8. 1. a Department of CLINTEC, Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden. 2. b Audiology and Neurotology , Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset , Stockholm , Sweden. 3. c Habilitation and Health , Hearing Organization, Mölndal Hospital , Mölndal , Sweden. 4. d Department of Clinical Sciences Intervention and Technology, Department of CLINTEC, Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases , Karolinska Institutet , Huddinge , Sweden. 5. e Department of Audiology and Neurotology , Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset , Stockholm , Sweden. 6. f Department of Otorhinolaryngology, ENT , Central Hospital , Karlstad , Sweden. 7. g Audiological Research Center , Örebro University Hospital , Örebro , Sweden. 8. h Faculty of Medicine and Health, Medicine and Health , Örebro University , Örebro , Sweden.
Abstract
Background: In Sweden, an estimated prevalence of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss is 0.2%, which corresponds to roughly 20,000. We know little about the use of cochlear implants (CIs) in this population and why not most of them are not offered CI. Objectives: To investigate the reasons for no rehabilitation with CI among this patient group. Materials and methods: Data were collected from 1076 patients in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology. A baseline questionnaire and the reason for no CI, was evaluated. Results: Only 14.5% of the patients started a CI investigation, and 8.5% were rehabilitated with CI. Significantly more women (56.5%) than men received CI. The most common reasons for not receiving CI, were hearing reason (30.5%), indicating satisfaction with technical equipment, and unknown reason (25%). The oldest patient group (81-100 years old) had the highest risk for unknown reasons. Patients receiving extended audiological rehabilitation (53.5%) had a significantly lower risk for unknown reasons. Conclusions: It is worrying that the oldest patient group (81-100 years old) seemed to have fewer chances to start a CI investigation. An extended audiological rehabilitation increased the chances that professionals would discuss CI. Significance: This study shows that surprisingly few patients are offered CI despite their severe-to-profound hearing loss.
Background: In Sweden, an estimated prevalence of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss is 0.2%, which corresponds to roughly 20,000. We know little about the use of cochlear implants (CIs) in this population and why not most of them are not offered CI. Objectives: To investigate the reasons for no rehabilitation with CI among this patient group. Materials and methods: Data were collected from 1076 patients in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology. A baseline questionnaire and the reason for no CI, was evaluated. Results: Only 14.5% of the patients started a CI investigation, and 8.5% were rehabilitated with CI. Significantly more women (56.5%) than men received CI. The most common reasons for not receiving CI, were hearing reason (30.5%), indicating satisfaction with technical equipment, and unknown reason (25%). The oldest patient group (81-100 years old) had the highest risk for unknown reasons. Patients receiving extended audiological rehabilitation (53.5%) had a significantly lower risk for unknown reasons. Conclusions: It is worrying that the oldest patient group (81-100 years old) seemed to have fewer chances to start a CI investigation. An extended audiological rehabilitation increased the chances that professionals would discuss CI. Significance: This study shows that surprisingly few patients are offered CI despite their severe-to-profound hearing loss.
Entities:
Keywords:
Swedish quality register; audiological rehabilitation; cochlear implants; gender; quality-of-life; severe-to-profound hearing loss