[Psychological stress, knowledge and treatment expectation of parents with a child managed by cochlear implant]

Postnatal genetic umbilical cord analysis for earliest possible detection of inherited hearing impairment

INTRODUCTION

The most common sensorineural disorder in humans is hearing impairment and approximately 60% of prelingual hearing disorders are genetic. Especially parents with a congenital deaf child want to know as early as possible whether their second born child has the same genetic defect or not. The aim of this study is to demonstrate that postnatal genetic umbilical cord analysis is both the earliest detection possibility and sufficient.

METHODS

We included first born children with severe hearing impairment that underwent cochlear implantation. All included patients were analyzed genetically and exhibited mutations of either DFNB1 loci or SLC26A4 gene. Additionally, the umbilical cord of the sibling underwent genetic analysis to detect hereditary genetic mutations as early as possible.

RESULTS

49 newborn children out of 22 families were included in this study. Genetic analysis revealed clinical relevant mutations in all first born children and in four siblings via umbilical cord analysis. All patients who have been diagnosed with a relevant genetic mutation that caused severe hearing impairment underwent hearing rehabilitation via cochlear implant surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the sufficient and early as possible detection of known genetically hearing disorders via umbilical cord analysis. In case of a known familial genetic hearing disorder, it is advisable to analyze newborn siblings for the corresponding genetic defect as soon as possible, to be able to plan and initiate clinical care for the patient as early as possible. It is also extremely important for the parents to obtain clear information about the auditory status of the newborn.

A comparison of the quality of life of parents of children using hearing aids and those using cochlear implants

Objective

The goal of this study was to evaluate the quality of life of parents of children who use hearing aids (HA) with those who use cochlear implants (CI) in the Indian context and document any differences found.

Methods

The Kannada version of the AQoL-4D was administered in a modified fashion to 131 parents (87 HA and 44 CI). Sociodemographic details were collected for supplemental information on the intervention strategy used.

Results

A total of 49 parents (29 HA and 20 CI) responded to the questionnaire sent. The mean total scores for both the groups were similar (HA group = 17.9 (SD = 5.5), CI group = 17.2 (SD = 3.4)), as was the score for the first subscale (HA group = 8.6 (SD = 2.9); CI group = 8.5 (SD = 2.6)) of the AQoL-4D. No significant differences were found between the two groups on either scores [Total Score: U (N_HA = 29, N_CI = 20) = 280.5, z = −0.194, p > 0.05; Subscale 1 Score: U (N_HA = 29, N_CI = 20) = 281.5, z = −0.176, p > 0.05]. The degree of hearing loss in the hearing aid group was equivalent to that of the cochlear implant group but this did not appear to influence parental quality of life.

Conclusion

Parents of children with hearing aids and cochlear implants appear to be similar on several psychosocial factors in the realms of functional, social, and psychological well-being. In terms of parental quality of life, hearing aids and cochlear implants appear to be equally effective intervention techniques.

•

Effect of Hearing impairment of children on their parents.

•

Differences in the quality of life across different amplification strategy used.

•

Correlation among quality of life, age of child, age of intervention, duration of hearing loss.

•

Emotional consequences in Parents having hearing impaired children.

Phenomenological needs assessment of parents of children with cochlear implants

Background

The use of cochlear implants has been a remarkable success in reducing disabilities in those with impaired hearing, which have made a significant change in the patients’ quality of life. Only by relying on cochlear implants, disabilities cannot be eliminated in the hearing impaired, and, alongside this intervention, rehabilitation practices such as through family and community support are necessary.

Aim

To explain the needs of parents of children with cochlear implants to increase the quality of rehabilitation services and family-based interventions.

Methods

A descriptive phenomenology study was performed with the participation of 16 people, including eight mothers, three fathers, and five experts involved with the rehabilitation of children aged 2–7 years with cochlear implants. The research setting was centers with speech therapy service providers for hearing-impaired children in the city of Shiraz (Iran) in 2015. Information was gathered through in-depth interviews with participants and analyzed by using Colaizzi’s nine-step analysis method and MAXQDA (Ver10) applications.

Results

The mean age of participants was 34 years, and the average age of diagnosis of hearing problems in children was 12 months. The obtained data from the analysis of interviews about the needs of parents of children with cochlear implants were categorized into 19 sub-contents and five contents, as follows: the need for access to health care services; psychological needs; mood-related needs of a child; educational needs and financial requirements.

Conclusion

Parents of children with cochlear implants have numerous needs, and they encounter problems based on their situation and experiences. The results indicate the necessity of close cooperation among different professionals such as an audiologist, pediatrician, psychologist, and speech therapist for the program’s success.

Assessing the Moderating Effect of the End User in Consumer Behavior: The Acceptance of Technological Implants to Increase Innate Human Capacities

Today, technological implants are being developed to increase innate human capacities, such as memory or calculation speed, and to endow us with new ones, such as the remote control of machines. This study's aim was two-fold: first, to introduce a Cognitive-Affective-Normative (CAN) model of technology acceptance to explain the intention to use this technology in the field of consumer behavior; and second, to analyze the differences in the intention to use it based on whether the intended implant recipient is oneself or one's child (i.e., the moderating effect of the end user). A multi-group analysis was performed to compare the results between the two groups: implant "for me" (Group 1) and implant "for my child" (Group 2). The model largely explains the intention to use the insideable technology for the specified groups [variance explained (R (2)) of over 0.70 in both cases]. The most important variables were found to be "positive emotions" and (positive) "subjective norm." This underscores the need to broaden the range of factors considered to be decisive in technology acceptance to include variables related to consumers' emotions. Moreover, statistically significant differences were found between the "for me" and "for my child" models for "perceived ease of use (PEU)" and "subjective norm." These findings confirm the moderating effect of the end user on new insideable technology acceptance.

Parents' views on changes in their child's communication and linguistic and socioemotional development after cochlear implantation

Our aim was to obtain versatile information on the communication and socioemotional development of implanted children in their everyday environment. We studied 18 children implanted unilaterally at the mean age of 3 years 4 months. All had normal nonverbal intelligence, but 8 (44%) had concomitant problems. Their parents filled out semistructured questionnaires at 6 months and then annually 1-5 years after activation. Parents reported a change from use of signs to speech, and changes in the children's vocal behavior and spoken language development. They also reported that children had calmed down and showed an increased sense of self-confidence and safety with an expanded social life. The greatest changes started to take place 1 year after implantation. Five years after implantation, two thirds of children were judged to be as independent as their age peers. We conclude that changes in communication pave the way to benefits in psychosocial development after implantation.

Parents' views on the quality of life of their children 2-3 years after cochlear implantation

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear implants for children are known to have impact on the lives of recipients and their families in a variety of ways. To obtain a clearer picture of these benefits, we explored the quality of life of 36 Finnish children and their families 2-3 years after unilateral cochlear implantation.

METHODS

The studied children were, on average 5 years old, and had received their implant at the median age of 2 years:5 months (range 1:6 to 12:3). Most (67%) of the children used speech, eight (22%) used speech and signs, and four (11%) used sign language as their main communication mode. A third of the children had concomitant problems in addition to their profound hearing impairment. A validated closed-set questionnaire "Children with cochlear implants: parental perspectives" (available, e.g., at http://www.earfoundation.org.uk/research/questionnaires.html) was used to find out parents' views and experiences on implantation and explore life after it.

RESULTS

Parents were most satisfied with improved/expanded social relations, improved communication (the development of spoken language), general functioning with the help of hearing and improved self-reliance of the child. Benefit of cochlear implantation was also detected with the Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP), which was concordant with views of the parents on the progress of their child in the areas of communication and education. When deciding on implantation, the parents particularly expected auditory information to enhance their child's safety in traffic, joining socially the hearing world, and better employment prospects as adults. Concerning the process of implantation, parents especially valued the know-how and fluent services of the implant centre, positive attitude within the family and information received from other families during the time they were considering the implant decision. Parents also found it important that they have the possibility to influence the communication mode that is used in their child's educational setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents report that cochlear implants affect their children in a wide variety of ways that cannot be summarized by a single scale. A broader descriptive framework is required to capture their experiences adequately.

Parental involvement in the habilitation process following children's cochlear implantation: an action theory perspective

Action theory and the qualitative action-project method are used in this study to address and illustrate the complexity of parenting children who have received cochlear implants (CIs) as well as the intentionality of parents engaged in that process. "Action" refers to individual and joint goal-directed and intentional behaviors. Action theory has the advantage of using the perspectives provided by manifest behavior, internal processes, and social meaning in the analysis of action. Two cases are used to describe the individual and joint actions and projects, as related to parents' involvement in the habilitation process of children's postcochlear implantation. These joint projects are described at the levels of meanings/goals, functional processes, behaviors, structural support, and resources. From the rich descriptions and analysis of the cases, we draw potentially illuminative implications for the "current thinking" in relation to parenting children with CIs.

Parental decision-making in considering cochlear implant technology for a deaf child

OBJECTIVES

Advances in cochlear implant (CI) technology have increased the complexity of treating childhood deafness. We compare parental decision-making, values, beliefs, and preferences between parents of eligible and ineligible children in considering cochlear implants.

METHODS

Surveys were obtained from 83 hearing parents of deaf children. A subset of 50 parents also underwent semi-structured interviews. Nine hypothetical outcomes, ranging from mainstream success to poor mainstream outcome were created to measure parents' overall preferences and preference for specific outcomes for their child who is deaf.

RESULTS

Among parents of eligible children (n = 50), approximately 2/3 considered implantation (n = 33). The other 1/3 did not consider implantation. Parents who were eligible but did not consider implantation placed significantly lower priority on mainstream success over bilingual success (P < 0.03), and on the child's ability to speak versus sign (P < 0.02). They also showed significantly higher concerns on the cost of services in general and on the availability of resources offered at the local school district (both P > 0.05). Parents of ineligible children (n = 30) rarely considered implantation, even if they showed similar aspirations in mainstream outcomes (P = 0.003). Semi-structured interview data supported these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to consider cochlear implantation is strongly influenced by the eligibility and by professionals' recommendations. However, for some parents, the decision goes beyond eligibility and is determined by parental preferences, goals, values, and beliefs. This highlights the importance of careful audiologic evaluation and professionals' awareness of and sensitivity to parental goals, values, and beliefs in evaluating the child's candidacy.

A comparison between parents of children with cochlear implants and parents of children with hearing aids regarding parental distress and treatment expectations

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to compare the parents of children with a hearing aid (HA) and children with a cochlear implant (CI) regarding their psychological distress, their expectations from treatment, their family climate, and the way they first obtained information on HA/CI.

METHODS

154 parents (return quota 41%; 81 mothers and 73 fathers) of 90 children with a HA and 103 parents (return quota 59%; 57 mothers and 46 fathers) of 57 children with a CI were interviewed by means of a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Both groups of parents felt distressed, particularly at the time of diagnosis. Their psychological well-being was gradually stabilized in the further course of rehabilitation. Due to the operation associated with it, fitting with a CI brought on a phase of heightened parental psychological distress compared with less invasive treatment with a HA. Regarding family climate, more distress was found in parents of CI children than in parents of HA children. Expectations from therapy appeared realistic in both parental groups; however, after CI fitting, the parents of the CI children showed heightened expectations by comparison with the parents of the HA children.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest that the parents of hearing impaired children fitted with a HA or a CI may be divided into two subgroups with divergent psychosocial parameters. For the counseling of the parents of hearing impaired children in clinical practice, it would seem important to take these specific differences into consideration.