Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T04:08:07.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RAPID ASSESSMENT OF BILATERAL COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION FOR CHILDREN IN KAZAKHSTAN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2014

Lyazzat Kosherbayeva ,
David Hailey  and
Laura Kozhageldiyeva
Lyazzat Kosherbayeva
Affiliation:
Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical UniversityLyazzat.k@mail.ru
David Hailey
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong
Laura Kozhageldiyeva
Affiliation:
Canadian Society for International Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) compared with unilateral CI for deaf children in the context of the Republic of Kazakhstan health system.

Methods. A literature search was conducted, using the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase data bases for studies that compared the effectiveness of bilateral and unilateral CI in children. The search included English language, publications from 2002–2012. Two reviewers independently evaluated all relevant studies. Administrative data relevant to CI in Kazakhstan were obtained from the Ministry of Health.

Results: Three relevant systematic reviews and an health technology assessment report were found. There was evidence of incremental benefits from bilateral CI but the quality of the available studies was poor and there was little information on longer term outcomes. No conclusions could be drawn regarding later incremental improvements to speech perception, learning, and quality of life. To date, in the Republic of Kazakhstan there is not full coverage of audiological screening due to the lack of medical equipment. This leads to late detection of hearing-impaired children and a long rehabilitation period, requiring more resources. Age of implantation in children is late and only a small minority attend general schools.

Conclusions: The clinical effectiveness of bilateral CI, an expensive health technology, requires further study. Given the current situation in Kazakhstan with audiological screening and access to unilateral CI, there appeared to be other priorities for improving services for children with profound hearing impairment.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentCochlear implantationChildrenKazakhstan
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 361 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Universal screening for hearing loss in newborns: Recommendation Statement. Pediatrics. 2008;122:143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. World Health Organization. Newborn and infant hearing screening. Current issues and guiding principles for action. Geneva: WHO Press; 2010. http://www.who.int/blindness/publications/Newborn_and_Infant_Hearing_Screening_Report.pdf (accessed February 18, 2014).Google Scholar
3. Kosherbayeva, L, Hailey, D. Bilateral and unilateral cochlear implantation in children. Astana: Ministry of Public Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 2013.Google Scholar
4. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. Bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) in children (Alert). Stockholm: SBU; 2006.Google Scholar
5. Bond, M, Mealing, S, Anderson, R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: A systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Forli, F, Arslan, E, Bellelli, S, et al. Systematic review of the literature on the clinical effectiveness of the cochlear implant procedure in paediatric patients. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2011;31:281–298.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Johnston, JC, Durieux-Smith, A, Angus, D, O’Connor, A, Fitzpatrick, E. Bilateral paediatric cochlear implants: A critical review. Int J Audiol. 2009;48:601–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Smulders, YE, Rinia, AB, Rovers, MM, van Zanten, GA, Grolman, W. What Is the effect of time between sequential cochlear implantations on hearing in adults and children? A systematic review of the literature. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:1942–1949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. May-Mederake, B, Kuehn, H, Vogel, A, et al. Evaluation of auditory development in infants and toddlers who received cochlear implants under the age of 24 months with the LittlEARS) Auditory Questionnaire. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed