Breaking the sound barrier: exploring parents' decision-making process of cochlear implants for their children

Development of Measures for d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing Stigma: Introduction to the Special Supplement on Stigma Measurement Tools

People who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) often experience stigma and discrimination in their daily lives. Qualitative research describing their lived experiences has provided useful, in-depth insights into the pervasiveness of stigma. Quantitative measures could facilitate further investigation of the scope of this phenomenon. Thus, under the auspices of the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss, we developed and preliminarily validated survey measures of different types of stigma related to d/Deafness and hearing loss in the United States (a high-income country) and Ghana (a lower-middle income country). In this introductory article, we first present working definitions of the different types of stigma; an overview of what is known about stigma in the context of hearing loss; and the motivation underlying the development of measures that capture different types of stigma from the perspectives of different key groups. We then describe the mixed-methods exploratory sequential approach used to develop the stigma measures for several key groups: people who are d/DHH, parents of children who are d/DHH, care partners of people who are d/DHH, healthcare providers, and the general population. The subsequent manuscripts in this special supplement of Ear and Hearing describe the psychometric validation of the various stigma scales developed using these methods.

Preliminary Validation of Hearing Device-Related Stigma Measures in Four United States Populations

OBJECTIVES

Although hearing devices such as cochlear implants and hearing aids often improve communication, many people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) choose not to use them. Hearing device-related stigma, or negative societal beliefs about people who use hearing devices, often drives this decision. Although much research has documented the negative effects of hearing device-related stigma, no widely accepted, validated measure to quantify such stigma across populations currently exists. In this article, we describe the preliminary validation of four distinct but related scales measuring hearing device-related stigma in different populations, including people who use hearing devices and those close to them.

DESIGN

We preliminarily validated four measures for quantifying hearing device-related stigma in different populations that were previously developed and refined through a literature review, Delphi interviews, cognitive interviews, and a pretest. We preliminarily validated these measures through self-administered online surveys in a convenience sample in the United States. Among participants who use a hearing device and who either (a) self-identified as being d/DHH before they developed language (lifelong; n = 78) or (b) those who self-identified as having acquired a d/DHH identity after they developed language (acquired n = 71), we validated an anticipated hearing device-related stigma scale (d/DHHS-LE-HDA). We validated three scales that measure perceived hearing device-related stigma observed by parents of children who are d/DHH and who use a hearing device (n = 79) (d/DHHS-P-HDPO), care partners of adults who are d/DHH and use a hearing device (n = 108) (d/DHHS-CP-HDPO), and health care providers (n = 203) (d/DHHS-HCP-HDSH). Exploratory factor analysis assessed the reliability of each measure.

RESULTS

Each of the four scales loaded onto one factor. Factor loadings for the eight-item scale measuring anticipated hearing device-related stigma among the two populations with lived experience ranged from 0.635 to 0.910, with an ordinal α of 0.93 in the lifelong d/DHH participants and 0.94 among the acquired d/DHH participants. The six-item scale of perceived stigma observed by parents had item loadings from 0.630 to 0.920 (α = 0.91). The nine-item scale of hearing device-related stigma observed by care partners had item loadings from 0.554 to 0.922 (α = 0.95). The eight-item scale of hearing device-related stigma reported by health care providers had item loadings from 0.647 to 0.941 (α = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary validation results show that the four stigma measures perform well in their respective populations. The anticipated stigma scale performed similarly well for both lifelong d/DHH and acquired d/DHH, which suggests that it could perform well in different contexts. Future research should further validate the scales described here as well as measure hearing device-related stigma in different populations-including people who live in different geographic regions and people using different kinds of hearing devices-and evaluate the success of interventions developed to reduce hearing device-related stigma.

Instruments for evaluating the parental emotional status and ecological support systems among parents who considered cochlear implantation for their children with hearing loss: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Parents of children diagnosed with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss may experience a range of emotions owing to a lack of knowledge and experience in dealing with such children. However, most audiology clinics only attend to children with deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) and not their parents. Thus, parents' emotional and support needs are frequently excluded from the intervention sessions, making their own needs invisible. This study aimed to identify academic and clinical instruments used for assessing parental emotional status (PES) and ecological support systems (ESS) in early intervention and determine the factors affecting PES and ESS among parents of DHH children undergoing cochlear implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This scoping review followed the rigorous methodological framework; searched Medline (via OVID and EMBSCO), Scopus, and Web of Science; and selected studies relevant to validated instruments used to evaluate the PES and ESS among parents of DHH children below 6 years old. Before selecting and reviewing relevant articles, two reviewers independently assessed article titles and abstracts from the data sources. Two reviewers verified half of the first reviewer's extracted data.

RESULTS

Overall, 3060 articles were retrieved from the database search, and 139 were selected for full-text review following title and abstract reviews. Ultimately, this study included 22 articles. Among them, 23 and 12 validated instruments, most of which are generic measures, were used for assessing PES and ESS, respectively. Three condition-specific instruments were identified and designed to be administered following cochlear implantation surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that healthcare professionals who interact with parents of DHH children lack the necessary instruments, particularly for parents of children undergoing cochlear implantation surgery. Therefore, it is necessary to develop condition-specific instruments for parents who consider cochlear implantation for their children.

Factors that influence health service access in deaf and hard-of-hearing children: a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Early diagnosis and intervention of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children leads to improved language and psychosocial outcomes. However, many child, parent and provider related factors can influence access to early intervention services, including hearing devices. This narrative review aims to explore factors that influence health service access in DHH children.

DESIGN

A systematic search was conducted to identify articles that explored factors that influenced health service access in DHH children in countries with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, published between 2010 and 2022.

STUDY SAMPLES

Fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. This included 4 systematic reviews, 2 reviews, 39 quantitative and 5 mixed methods studies and 9 qualitative studies.

RESULTS

The identified factors were grouped into the following themes: (a) demographic factors, (b) family related factors, (c) child related factors, (d) factors specific to hearing devices, (e) service delivery, f) telehealth and (g) COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

This review provided a comprehensive summary of multiple factors that affect access to health services in DHH children. Psychosocial support, consistent clinical advice, allocation of resources to rural communities and use of telehealth are possible ways to address barriers and improve health service access.

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Structure Principles

This article is the seventh in a series of eight articles that comprise a special issue on family-centered early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing and their families, or FCEI-DHH. This article, Structure Principles, is the third of three articles (preceded by Foundation Principles and Support Principles) that describe the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles. The Structure Principles include 4 Principles (Principle 7, Principle 8, Principle 9, and Principle 10) that highlight (a) the importance of trained and effective Early Intervention (EI) Providers, (b) the need for FCEI-DHH teams to work collaboratively to support families, (c) the considerations for tracking children's progress through developmental assessment, and (d) the essential role of progress monitoring to continuously improve systems.

Benefits and risks related to cochlear implantation for children with residual hearing: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to synthesise information concerning the potential benefits and risks related to cochlear implants (CIs) versus hearing aids (HAs) in children with residual hearing.

DESIGN

A systematic review of articles published from January 2003 to January 2019 was conducted.

STUDY SAMPLE

Our review included studies that compared the benefits and risks of CIs versus HAs in children (≤18 years old) with residual hearing. A total of 3265 citations were identified; 8 studies met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Children with CIs showed significantly better speech perception scores post-CI than pre-CI. There was limited evidence related to improvement in everyday auditory performance, and the results showed non-significant improvement in speech intelligibility. One study on social-emotional functioning suggested benefits from CIs. In four studies, 37.2% (16/43) of children showed loss of residual hearing and 14.0% (8/57) had discontinued or limited use of their device.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with CIs showed improvement in speech perception outcomes compared to those with HAs. However, due to the limited number of studies and information to guide decision-making related to other areas of development, it will be important to conduct further research of both benefits and risks of CIs in this specific population to facilitate decision-making.

Evaluation of Parental Perspectives and Concerns about Pediatric Cochlear Implantation: A Social Media Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Parents often experience uncertainty during decision-making for their child's cochlear implantation (CI) surgery, and online forums provide insight on parental opinions that might not be expressed in clinic. This study aims to evaluate parental perspectives and concerns about pediatric CI using social media analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING

Three online forums involving parental posts about pediatric CI.

INTERVENTION/METHODS

Forums were queried using keywords (e.g., "cochlear implant") to gather all U.S. parent-initiated posts about pediatric CI from 2006 to 2021. Thematic content analysis was performed to classify posts by overarching domain, themes, and subthemes. Posts were reviewed for thematic synthesis and double coded. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each theme by unique users.

RESULTS

A total of 79 posts by 41 unique users were analyzed. Themes relating to decision for CI included facilitators, inhibitors, resources, and feelings. Parents posted about lack of benefit from hearing aids promoting decision for CI and high cost as an inhibitor. Some expressed concern about making a major decision for a minor. Parents often mentioned their child's healthcare providers and social media as resources.

CONCLUSION

Through social media posts, parental priorities and concerns for decision-making of CI surgery were identified. Findings may guide discussions between physicians and parents and facilitate shared decision-making about CI.

Cochlear implant decision-making for children with residual hearing: Perspectives of parents

PURPOSE

Cochlear implant (CI) decision-making is particularly challenging for families of children who have residual hearing. Parents of these children may be uncertain about whether the potential benefits of CIs outweigh the risks. This study aimed to understand parents' decisional needs during the decision-making process for children with residual hearing.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of 11 children who had received CIs. Open-ended questions were asked to encourage parents to share their experiences about the decision-making process, their values/preferences, and their needs. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Data were organized according to three key themes: (1) Parents' decisional conflict, (2) values and preferences, (3) decision support and parents' needs. We found that overall parents were satisfied with their decision-making process and the decision support from practitioners. However, parents stressed the importance of receiving more personalized information that considers their specific concerns, values and preferences related to family's circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research provides additional evidence to guide the CI decision-making process for children with residual hearing. Additional collaborative research with audiology and decision-making experts specifically on facilitating shared decision-making is needed to provide better decision coaching for these families.

Sensitivity to Deaf Culture Among Otolaryngology and Audiology Trainees

OBJECTIVE

The Deaf community is an ethnolinguistic minority group. Low sensitivity to Deaf culture contributes to health disparities among Deaf patients. This study determines the level of sensitivity to Deaf culture among otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) and audiology trainees.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey study of OHNS and audiology trainees from 10 large US institutions. Trainees were queried on their exposure to and comfort with Deaf patients and their education on, attitude toward, and awareness and knowledge of Deaf culture. Sensitivity to Deaf culture was operationalized as awareness and knowledge of Deaf culture. These were assessed using a 35-item instrument that was previously developed using a d/Deaf community-based participatory approach to research. We used T-tests to compare the sample to previous samples of medical students with training in Deaf culture (MS-TDCs) and general practitioners (GPs).

RESULTS

There were 91 completed surveys (response rate 44.5%). Almost all were aware of Deaf culture (97.8%). The mean knowledge score was 55.0% (standard deviation (SD) 13.4%), which was significantly higher than that for GPs at 43.0% (SD 15.0%) (95% confidence interval 8.1%, 15.8%, P < .0001) but significantly lower than that for MS-TDCs at 69.0% (SD 13.0%)(CI -20.3%, -7.6%, P < .0001). Knowledge scores were comparable for OHNS and audiology trainees (P = .09).

CONCLUSION

This sample of OHNS and audiology trainees was more sensitive to Deaf culture than GPs but less sensitive than MS-TDCs. Developing specialty-specific education may be warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Research About Parents of Children with Cochlear Implants: A Scoping Review

Parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing have long attracted interest from researchers, though, since the 1990s, published research about this population has increasingly gravitated toward issues surrounding pediatric cochlear implantation. This scoping review was undertaken to map the nature, extent, and range of three decades of research about parents of children with cochlear implants, and reports on (1) publication characteristics, (2) sampling characteristics, and (3) study design characteristics within 80 peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2020. The results indicate several gaps and gluts within the field, including a lack of diversity within (and detail about) study samples, a disproportionate focus on evaluating parents' personal characteristics and (presupposed) psycho-emotional problems, and a scarcity of participatory or co-constructed projects. The results may inform future research, ensuring a wider range of perspectives and experiences are recorded and issues of highest priority and relevance to families are investigated.

Patient, parental and multi-disciplinary team rationale for non-implantation following the paediatric cochlear implantation assessment

OBJECTIVES

To assess paediatric patients referred to the cochlear implant team, who despite undergoing the assessment, did not receive cochlear implantation. To identify the underlying reasons for this.

METHODS

A retrospective case-note review of patients was assessed from June 2014 to June 2019 at two separate London teaching hospitals with paediatric cochlear implantation programmes.

RESULTS

A total of 921 paediatric patients were assessed during the study period across both institutions. And, 196 (21%) did not proceed with the surgery. The decision not to undergo surgery was primarily parental/patient-directed in 114 (61%) and cochlear implant team-directed in 74 (39%). In total, eight (4%) patients exited the programme without a documented reason.

DISCUSSION

A myriad of factors influenced the decision-making process for clinicians, patients and parents. The most cited parental/patient rationale against implantation was the wish to continue current means of communication 40 (35%), followed by concern regarding the risks of surgery 18 (15.8%) and the wish to allow the patient to make future decisions independently in view of the future technology 7 (6.1%). Cochlear implant team-directed decisions were largely due to being outside of the NICE criteria 27 (36.5%) or the risks of general anaesthesia 19 (25.7%) in addition to communication concerns 11 (14.9%).

CONCLUSION

Decision-making in cochlear implantation should not be underestimated. Extensive discussion and exploration of options with the multi-disciplinary team can aid decision-making, but the timescale and appreciation of the consequences of the decision inevitably lead to pressure. Exploration of reasons for non-implantation emphasises the importance of a multi-professional approach to manage these patients.

What makes someone choose cochlear implantation? An exploration of factors that inform patient decision making

Objective: Our objective was to understand the factors that determine whether an adult who is eligible for cochlear implantation (CI) choose to take up or not take up the implant.Design: We conducted a qualitative in-depth interview study, informed by grounded theory methods of constant comparison to build a theory to describe why and how people decide to opt for CI or not.Study sample: Our samples were patients from an audiology service in England.Results: Our results describe the key factors in weighing up risks and benefits. These are influenced by living context and support, information and social identity. We identify the key features that impact decision making for adults eligible for cochlear implants. The importance of the patient lifeworld view is discussed.Conclusions: This qualitative study provides the first in depth examination of how and why patients do and do not take up the offer of cochlear implants. It highlights the complex and iterative nature of this decision making and the individualised risks that trade off benefits of implantation.

Parental Decision-Making and Deaf Children: A Systematic Literature Review

Parents or caregivers of children who are deaf or hard of hearing are required to make complex and rational decisions soon after the confirmation of hearing loss. Ways of facilitating decision-making have been a focus within the healthcare sector for two decades and shared decision-making is now widely viewed as the standard for good clinical care. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify the extent to which the principles of shared decision-making and informed choice have been implemented for parents when they make decisions related to their children with permanent hearing loss. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers describing the results of original research published from 2000 to 2017, yielding 37 relevant papers. Studies were reviewed using the three phases of decision-making-information exchange, deliberation, and implementation. Two decisions dominated these studies-implantable devices and communication modality. Most papers dealt with decision-making in the context of bilateral hearing loss, with only one study focusing on unilateral hearing loss. The review identified gaps where further research is needed to ensure the lessons learnt in the broader decision-making literature are implemented when parents make decisions regarding their child who is deaf or hard of hearing.

Factors Influencing Caregiver Decision Making to Change the Communication Method of their Child with Hearing Loss

The communication journey of a child with hearing loss is often a complex, interwoven process in which the child's use of language or method of communication may change numerous times. As there has been limited research exploring the caregiver decision making process behind making such changes, this qualitative descriptive study aimed to explore the factors which influence the caregiver decision making process to change the communication method of their child with hearing loss. Individual semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with seven caregivers of children with hearing loss in Australia. Thematic analysis revealed five key themes which influenced caregiver decisions regarding changes to their child's method of communication, including: (1) family characteristics; (2) family access to information; (3) family strengths; (4) family beliefs; and (5) family-centered practice. The overall finding that the family unit is at the core of decision-making has important clinical implications regarding early intervention professionals' provision of family-centered services when working with the families of children with hearing loss.