Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8v9h9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T18:24:00.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of quality of life outcomes with the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory following cochlear implantation in children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2019

A N Dev ,
S Adhikari ,
U Lohith ,
C S Dutt  and
S N Dutt
A N Dev*
Affiliation:
Department of Research, Vani Pradan Kendra, Bangalore, India
S Adhikari
Affiliation:
Department of Speech Therapy, Vani Pradan Kendra, Bangalore, India
U Lohith
Affiliation:
Department of Speech Therapy, Vani Pradan Kendra, Bangalore, India
C S Dutt
Affiliation:
Department of Research, Vani Pradan Kendra, Bangalore, India
S N Dutt
Affiliation:
Department of Research, Vani Pradan Kendra, Bangalore, India
*
Author for correspondence: Ms Apurva Nidgundi Dev, Vani Pradan Kendra, No. 81, Ashadeep, 2nd Main, 1st Cross, Btm Layout 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560076, India E-mail: email.apoorva@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

This study investigated health-related quality of life outcomes for children with cochlear implants in India using the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory questionnaire. Cochlear implantation is associated with improved language outcomes. Some studies show this gives higher quality of life after implantation. Previous research demonstrates that India presents unique circumstances that impact perspectives regarding cochlear implantation.

Method

Children (aged under 18 years) who had undergone cochlear implantation were recruited from Vani Pradan Kendra, an organisation for individuals with hearing loss based in Bangalore, India. Demographic data including age, sex, duration of hearing loss and age at implant were collected, and the children's parents or caregivers completed the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory questionnaire.

Results

Sixty-nine children (mean age: 8.0 ± 3.89 years) were recruited, and all reported improved quality of life after cochlear implantation. There was no effect of age, gender or education on reported benefits. However, a younger age at implant and longer experience with an implant were associated with greater quality of life improvements.

Conclusion

Cochlear implantation leads to improved quality of life, with greater improvements associated with earlier implantation. This supports early intervention in children with profound hearing loss.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantationQuality Of LifeHearing LossOutcome Assessment (Health Care)Retrospective StudiesPatient SatisfactionHealth StatusChildSurveys And QuestionnairesFollow-Up StudiesLearning

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 9 , September 2019 , pp. 759 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Ms A N Dev takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Crowson, MG, Semenov, YR, Tucci, DL, Niparko, JK. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants: a narrative review. Audiol Neurootol 2017;22:236–58Google Scholar
2Driver, S, Jiang, D. Paediatric cochlear implantation factors that affect outcomes. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2017;21:104–8Google Scholar
3Tange, RA, Grolman, W, Drechsler, WA. What to do with the other ear after cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2009;10:19–24Google Scholar
4Bat-Chava, Y, Martin, D, Kosciw, JG. Longitudinal improvements in communication and socialization of deaf children with cochlear implants and hearing aids: evidence from parental reports. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2005;46:1287–96Google Scholar
5Blamey, P, Barry, J, Bow, C, Sarant, J, Paatsch, L, Wales, R. The development of speech production following cochlear implantation. Clin Linguist Phon 2001;15:363–82Google Scholar
6Connor, CM, Hieber, S, Arts, HA, Zwolan, TA. Speech, vocabulary, and the education of children using cochlear implants: oral or total communication? J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000;43:1185–204Google Scholar
7Geers, AE, Nicholas, JG, Sedey, AL. Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2003;24(suppl 1):46S–58SGoogle Scholar
8Geers, AE. Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:634–8Google Scholar
9Kluwin, TN, Stewart, DA. Cochlear implants for younger children: a preliminary description of the parental decision process and outcomes. Am Ann Deaf 2000;145:26–32Google Scholar
10Svirsky, MA, Robbins, AM, Kirk, KI, Pisoni, DB, Miyamoto, RT. Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci 2000;11:153–8Google Scholar
11Bat-Chava, Y, Deignan, E. Peer relationships of children with cochlear implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2001;6:186–99Google Scholar
12Bat-Chava, Y, Martin, D. Sibling relationships for deaf children: the impact of child and family characteristics. Rehabil Psychol 2002;47:73–91Google Scholar
13Christiansen, JB, Leigh, IW. Cochlear Implants in Children: Ethics and Choices. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2002Google Scholar
14Tomblin, JB, Spencer, LJ, Gantz, BJ. Language and reading acquisition in children with and without cochlear implants. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000;57:300–4Google Scholar
15Fagan, MK, Pisoni, DB, Horn, DL, Dillon, CM. Neuropsychological correlates of vocabulary, reading, and working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2007;12:461–71Google Scholar
16WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. In: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/whoqol-qualityoflife/en/ [19 April 2018]Google Scholar
17Eiser, C, Morse, R. A review of measures of quality of life for children with chronic illness. Arch Dis Child 2001;84:205–11Google Scholar
18Cohen, SM, Labadie, RF, Dietrich, MS, Haynes, DS. Quality of life in hearing-impaired adults: the role of cochlear implants and hearing aids. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131:413–22Google Scholar
19Lassaletta, L, Castro, A, Bastarrica, M, de Sarriá, MJ, Gavilán, J. Quality of life in postlingually deaf patients following cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:267–70Google Scholar
20Orabi, AA, Mawman, D, Al-Zoubi, F, Saeed, SR, Ramsden, RT. Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in the elderly: Manchester experience over 13 years. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:116–22Google Scholar
21Stacey, PC, Fortnum, HM, Barton, GR, Summerfield, AQ. Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, I: auditory performance, communication skills, educational achievements, quality of life, and cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2006;27:161–86Google Scholar
22Loy, B, Warner-Czyz, AD, Tong, L, Tobey, EA, Roland, PS. The children speak: an examination of the quality of life of pediatric cochlear implant users. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;142:247–53Google Scholar
23Sparreboom, M, Snik, AF, Mylanus, EA. Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation in children: quality of life. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;138:134–41Google Scholar
24Speaker, RB, Roberston, J, Simoes-Franklin, C, Glynn, F, Walshe, P, Viani, L. Quality of life outcomes in cochlear implantation of children with profound and multiple learning disability. Cochlear Implants Int 2018;19:162–6Google Scholar
25Dutt, SN, Mcdermott, AL, Jelbert, A, Reid, AP, Proops, DW. The Glasgow benefit inventory in the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the bone-anchored hearing aid: quality of life issues. J Laryngol Otol Suppl 2002;28:7–14Google Scholar
26Chundu, S, Manchaiah, VK, Stephens, D, Kumar, N. Parental reported benefits and shortcomings of cochlear implantation: pilot study findings from Southeast Asia. Cochlear Implants Int 2013;14:22–7Google Scholar
27Garg, S, Singh, R, Chadha, S, Agarwal, AK. Cochlear implantation in India: a public health perspective. Indian J Med Sci 2011;65:116–20Google Scholar
28Kubba, H, Swan, IR, Gatehouse, S. The Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory: a new instrument for assessing health-related benefit after an intervention. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2004;113:980–6Google Scholar
29Clark, JH, Wang, NY, Riley, AW, Carson, CM, Meserole, RL, Lin, FR et al. Timing of cochlear implantation and parents’ global ratings of children's health and development. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:545–52Google Scholar
30Almeida, RP, Matas, CG, Couto, MI, de Carvalho, AC. Quality of life evaluation in children with cochlear implants. Codas 2015;27:29–36Google Scholar
31Sach, TH, Barton, GR. Interpreting parental proxy reports of (health-related) quality of life for children with unilateral cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007;71:435–45Google Scholar
32Niparko, JK, Tobey, EA, Thal, DJ, Eisenberg, LS, Wang, NY, Quittner, A et al. Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA 2010;303:1498–506Google Scholar
33Dev, AN, Lohith, U, Pascal, B, Dutt, CS, Dutt, SN. A questionnaire-based analysis of parental perspectives on pediatric cochlear implant (CI) re/habilitation services: a pilot study from a developing CI service in India. Cochlear Implants Int 2018;19:338–49Google Scholar