Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward cochlear implants among deaf patients who received cochlear implants

Despite the growing use of cochlear implants in deaf patients, there is a lack of data on their knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) toward cochlear implants. This study aimed to investigate the KAP toward cochlear implants among deaf patients who received cochlear implants. A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2022 and December 2022 among deaf patients who had received cochlear implants. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect demographic characteristics and KAP scores. A total of 526 participants were enrolled; 54.18% were female, 65.40% were above 60 years old, and 61.03% were surveyed at less than 3 years after implantation. The mean knowledge, attitude, and practice scores were 8.15 ± 2.18 (possible range: 0-10), 43.63 ± 6.98 (possible range: 12-60), and 41.11 ± 7.42 (possible range: 11-55), respectively, indicating good knowledge, moderate attitude and practice. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that attitude [odd ratio (OR) = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.29, P < 0.001] and unemployment (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.63, P = 0.001) were independently associated with practice. Path analysis showed that knowledge directly influenced attitude (β = 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.19, P < 0.001), attitude directly influenced practice (β = 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.61, P < 0.001), and knowledge directly (β = 0.77, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, P < 0.001) and indirectly (β = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.66, P < 0.001) influenced practice. Deaf patients who received cochlear implants showed good knowledge, moderate attitude and practice toward cochlear implants. Knowledge should be strengthened to improve attitude and practice toward cochlear implants, which could translate into realistic expectations toward cochlear implants devices and proper care and maintenance.

Cochlear implant referral patterns in the UK suggest a postcode lottery with inequitable access for older adults; results of a pilot audit in five Audiology sites

OBJECTIVE

To use a standardised reporting tool to identify potential eligible candidates for cochlear implant (CI) referral and quantify the proportion of adults who had a CI referral discussion after presenting with an audiogram within United Kingdom (UK) audiometric criteria.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicentre 6-month audit of Audiology clinic databases.

STUDY SAMPLE

A total of 810 adults from five geographically diverse UK Audiology sites.

RESULTS

Data were collected in late 2019 after UK CI audiometric candidacy criteria changed; one site collected only 3 months of data. The proportion of potential eligible adults (based only on audiometry) considered for CI referral was 64% (521 out of 810) and varied by site (from 50% to 83%). About 24% of patients (123 out of 521) declined CI referral; this also varied across sites (12-45%). The median age of patients where CI referral was not considered was 80 years - significantly higher than the group where CI referral was considered (73 years).

CONCLUSIONS

CI referral is dependent on where adults live, and how old they are. Older adults are significantly less likely to be considered for CI referral by Audiologists. Audiology clinics need more support to empower staff to talk to patients about CI referral.

Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices Towards Cochlear Implantations Among Otorhinolaryngologists in India

The outcome of the cochlear implant is dependent highly on the knowledge, belief and practice of cochlear implant in otolaryngologists who are among the important team members. The study explored the knowledge, beliefs, and practices towards cochlear implantations among otorhinolaryngologists in India. An online cross-sectional survey study was carried out using convenient sampling among otorhinolaryngologists in India. Phase-I involved developing and validating of a questionnaire to study the knowledge, beliefs, and practices towards cochlear implants among otorhinolaryngologists in India while phase II involved administration of the questionnaire and analysis. Data collection was conducted using Google Forms. A total of 106 otorhinolaryngologists participated across 24-65 years of age and with experience ranging from 1 to 42 years. The participating otorhinolaryngologists reported having good knowledge about the candidacy for a cochlear implant but having limited knowledge of the recent developments and governmental schemes. The otorhinolaryngologists displayed positive beliefs regarding cochlear implantation. Most recommended a battery of tests to determine the candidacy and gave a lot of importance to rehabilitation (96.2%) and surgery for implantation (83%). The respondents also practiced giving importance to a team approach involving multiple team members. High costs and financial burden emerged to be the major challenges for cochlear implantation in India. The findings of the survey indicate an overall positive belief and practices towards cochlear implantation by otorhinolaryngologists in India. However, there is a need to spread more awareness among them about the recent advances and schemes that would further improve their service delivery.

Models of service delivery in adult cochlear implantation and evaluation of outcomes: A scoping review of delivery arrangements

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe available evidence of cochlear implantation delivery arrangements in adults and the outcomes by which these service models are measured.

METHODS

Scoping review of English language, primary studies conducted on adults (≥18 years) with ten or more subjects, published between January 2000 and June 2022, which assessed the effects of delivery arrangements of cochlear implantation were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, AMED, PsycINFO, LILACS, KoreaMed, IndMed, Cochrane CRCT, ISRCTN registry, WHO ICTRP and Web of Science were systematically searched. Included studies had to have a method section explicitly measure at least one of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) outcome category. Criteria for systematic reviews and delivery arrangement category based on EPOC taxonomy was included in data extraction. Data was narratively synthesized based on EPOC categories.

RESULTS

A total of 8135 abstracts were screened after exclusion of duplicates, of these 357 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Around 40% of the studies investigated how care is delivered, focusing on quality and safety systems. New care pathways to coordinate care and the use of information and communication technology were emerging areas. There was little evidence on continuity, coordination and integration of care, how the workforce is managed, where care is provided and changes in the healthcare environment. The main outcome measure for various delivery arrangements were the health status and performance in a test.

CONCLUSION

A substantial body of evidence exists about safety and efficacy of cochlear implantation in adults, predominantly focused on surgical aspects and this area is rapidly growing. There is a lack of evidence on aspects of care delivery that may have more impact on patients' experience such as continuity, coordination and integration of care and should be a focus of future research. This would lead to a better understanding of how patient's view CI experience, associated costs and the value of different care models.

The Views and Experience of Audiologists Working in Flemish Hearing Aid Centers Concerning Cognition Within Audiological Practice

PURPOSE

This study aimed to get insight into the views and experience of audiologists, employed in Flemish hearing aid centers, concerning cognition within audiological practice.

METHOD

An online 49-item questionnaire was developed and subdivided into five categories: (a) work setting, (b) practical experience regarding hearing aid fitting linked to cognition, (c) knowledge regarding the auditory-cognitive perspective of speech understanding, (d) willingness and guidelines to implement cognitive measures within audiological practice, and (e) demographics. Respondents were surveyed during January and February 2021.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-nine audiologists working in Flemish hearing aid centers responded to the entire questionnaire and showed a mean work experience of 8.0 years. Results revealed that cognition was taken into account, especially within the anamnesis interview and general communication strategy, whereas only a minority took cognition into account when actually fitting hearing aids. Knowledge and experience did not determine whether or not respondents took cognition into account. A willingness to implement cognitive measures in a time-efficient manner in audiological practice was observed among respondents.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based guidelines regarding hearing aid fitting based on an individual's auditory-cognitive profile are needed to improve the quality of hearing rehabilitation.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19593388.

Knowledge, attitude and practices regarding cochlear implants among medical doctors other than otolaryngologists: a prospective cross-sectional study

Objective

Cochlear implant is the standard treatment of choice for children and adults with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices regarding cochlear implant among doctors other than otolaryngologists in a tertiary care academic institution.

Method

A 24-item knowledge, attitude and practices questionnaire was developed based on an extensive literature review and expert opinion and was administered to 100 non-otolaryngologists in a tertiary care academic institution to be completed in about 15 minutes. The data obtained was analysed to assess knowledge, attitude and practices regarding cochlear implant in this group.

Results

The results showed that awareness regarding the option of cochlear implants for elderly and unilateral deafness was deficient. Surgeons and doctors in higher specialties did better when it came to practice related to cochlear implant. The age and experience of doctors also improved knowledge and practice with regards to cochlear implant.

Conclusion

Improving awareness about cochlear implants and their benefits among non-otolaryngology colleagues can ensure that more people who could potentially benefit from cochlear implants will receive appropriate counselling and referral.

Perspectives on Support Material for Referrals to Cochlear Implantation Teams

PURPOSE

This study used a collaborative approach to explore the needs, barriers, and facilitators to developing cochlear implant referral information material that would be valuable for hard of hearing adults and referring audiologists.

METHOD

During the development of a prototype referral aid to be used within the Australian context, a multistage qualitative study was conducted using a consultative process, informal and semistructured interviews, as well as online surveys. A deductive directed content analysis approach was applied to assess respondents' perspectives. A total of 106 participants (37 hard of hearing adults and 69 audiologists) were involved across the multiple phases of this study.

RESULTS

Referral practices for the evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy in Australia are highly inconsistent, supporting the need to streamline referral information. The following facilitators were identified to support the development of referral material: appropriate content, perceived patient benefit, and objectivity. Areas for improvement related to the broadness of the content, impact on professional identity, and accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Practical insight from patients and referrers can inform the development of patient-facing material related to cochlear implant referrals. Streamlining information used in educational material could alleviate confusion inherent to varied health literacy levels and support patients in making informed decisions related to pursuing, or not, cochlear implantation candidacy evaluation services.

Development of a novel screening tool for predicting Cochlear implant candidacy

OBJECTIVES

Cochlear implantation (CI) is a well-established treatment for sensorineural hearing loss. Due in part to a lack of referral guidelines, CI technology remains underutilized, and many patients who could benefit from CI may not be referred for evaluation. This study aimed to develop a model for predicting CI candidacy using routine audiometric measures, with the goal of providing guidance to clinicians regarding when to refer a patient for CI evaluation.

METHODS

Unaided three-frequency pure tone average (PTA), unaided speech discrimination score (SDS), and best-aided sentence recognition testing with AZBio sentence lists were collected from 252 subjects undergoing CIE. Candidacy was defined by meeting traditional (AZBio score ≤ 60%), or Medicare criteria (≤40%). A logistic regression model was developed to predict candidacy. Confusion matrices were plotted to determine the sensitivity and specificity at various probability thresholds.

RESULTS

Logistic regression models were capable of predicting probability of candidacy for traditional criteria (P < .001) and Medicare criteria (P < .001). PTA and SDS were significant predictors (P < .001). Using a probability cutoff of .5, the models yielded a sensitivity rate of 91% and 78% for traditional and Medicare criteria, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Probability of CI candidacy may be determined using a novel screening tool for referral. This tool supports individualized counseling, serves as a proof of concept for candidacy prediction, and could be modified based on an institution's philosophy regarding an acceptable false positive rate of referral.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Decentralized Cochlear Implant Programming Network Improves Access, Maintains Quality, and Engenders High Patient Satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear implants have become a powerful tool in managing patients with moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss and lack of benefit from hearing aids. Currently, less than 10% of people who would benefit from a CI receive the treatment. This lack of access is multi-factorial yet largely due in part to an inadequate referral system. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate speech outcomes and patient satisfaction for adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients in a single-surgeon, high volume CI center that uses a decentralized network (DCN) of private practice programming audiologists.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTING

Tertiary otology/neurotology practice.

PATIENTS

Adult CI recipients implanted between April 2017 and August 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical/rehabilitative.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Speech outcomes (AzBio quiet) were evaluated 6-months post implantation. Patients were surveyed to determine satisfaction with programming services, surgical services, and CI benefit.

RESULTS

The senior author (A.J.) performed 223 CI operations: 136 (61%) were programmed at the CI center and 84 (38%) at outside audiology clinics through a DCN. The 6-month speech outcomes (AzBio, quiet) revealed similar scores regardless of where programming services were received; CI center: 25% pre-op versus 55% post-op; DCN: 24% pre-op versus 59% post-op. Additionally, patients reported high-levels of satisfaction with programming services, surgical services, and CI benefit.

CONCLUSION

A decentralized network of well-trained private practice audiologists who identify CI candidates and program their devices after surgery 1) improves patient access to cochlear implantation, 2) maintains excellent speech outcomes, and 3) engenders high levels of patient satisfaction.

What Influences Decision-Making for Cochlear Implantation in Adults? Exploring Barriers and Drivers From a Multistakeholder Perspective

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors influencing the uptake of cochlear implants in adults, determine the impact of each factor, and to conceptualize the journey to implantation from a multistakeholder perspective.

DESIGN

Concept mapping was used to integrate input from multiple stakeholders, each with their own experience and expertise. This mixed participatory method collects qualitative and quantitative data collection and enables further quantitative analysis. There were two participant cohorts: clients (cochlear implant recipients, candidates, and family members) and professionals (cochlear implant audiologists, ear, nose, and throat surgeons, administration staff, managers. and manufacturer representatives). A total of 93 people participated in the study: client cohort (n = 60, M age = 66.60 years) and professional cohort (n = 33, M age = 45.24 years). Participants brainstormed statements in response to the question "What influences people's decision to get/not get a cochlear implant?" They subsequently grouped the statements and named each group. They rated each statement as to its impact on the decision and prioritized the need for each to be changed/improved using a five-point Likert scale. Multidimensional scaling was used to produce a visual representation of the ideas and their relationship in the form of concepts. Further analysis was conducted to determine the differences between the cohorts, subcohorts, and concepts.

RESULTS

One hundred ten unique statements were generated and grouped into six concepts which either directly affected the client or their environment. These concepts were: external influences (awareness and attitude of non-implant professionals about uptake, cost, logistics, the referral pathway, public awareness); uncertainties, beliefs, and fears (fears, negative effect of word of mouth, unsuccessful previous ear surgery, cosmetics of the device, misunderstanding of how a cochlear implant functions, eligibility for an implant and outcomes after implantation); health problems (mental and physical health); hearing difficulties (social, emotional, and communication impacts of hearing loss, severity of hearing loss, benefit from and experience with hearing aids); implant professionals (implant team's attitude, knowledge and relationship with clients, quality of overall service); and goals and support (clients 'hearing desires and goals, motivation, positive impact of word of mouth, family support, having a cochlear implant mentor. The six concepts fell into two overarching domains: the client-driven domain with four concepts and the external domain with two concepts. The mean rating of concepts in terms of impact on a client's decision to get an implant ranged from 2.24 (external influences, the main barrier) to 4.45 (goals and support, the main driver). Ratings significantly differed between the client and professional cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study increases our understanding of the factors, which influence a client's decision choose a cochlear implant as a hearing treatment. It also provides new information on the influence of the other stakeholders on the client journey. The magnitude of the generated statements in the client-driven domain highlights the pivotal role of individualized care in clinical settings in influencing a client's decision and the need for the professionals to understand a client's needs and expectations. A client's persistent hearing difficulties, goals, and support network were identified as drivers to the uptake of cochlear implants. However, the barriers identified highlight the need for a collaborative multi- and interdisciplinary approach to raise awareness in and educate non-implant hearing professionals about the cochlear implant process, as well as providing information to empower clients to make educated decisions and consider a cochlear implant as a hearing management option.

Sound Opportunities: Factors That Impact Referral for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Evaluation

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To identify barriers to and opportunities for referral among children who could be considered for cochlear implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

METHODS

Audiological and medical records were reviewed on all children who had diagnostic or hearing aid care through a statewide healthcare system over 5-year span to identify children who met newly established clinical cochlear implant (CI) referral criteria. Data were collected for 869 potential CI candidates regarding demographic, socio-economic, audiological, medical, and family factors that may influence referral. A binomial logistic regression was completed to investigate the potential contributions of these predictors toward referral for a CI evaluation.

RESULTS

Children who met traditional candidacy criteria of severe-to-profound bilateral hearing loss were referred at very high rates, while nontraditional candidates were referred less frequently. Factors influencing referral included race, age, insurance source, hearing thresholds, audiologist, physician, and family request.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that bilateral traditional candidates are being referred at high percentages; however, current practices and trends in pediatric cochlear implantation should be shared with families and providers to increase referral rates for nontraditional candidates.  LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss

Individuals with severe to profound hearing loss are likely to present with complex listening needs that require evidence-based solutions. This document is intended to inform the practice of hearing care professionals who are involved in the audiological management of adults with a severe to profound degree of hearing loss and will highlight the special considerations and practices required to optimize outcomes for these individuals.

Adults' cochlear implant journeys through care: a qualitative study

Background

Cochlear implants (CIs) can provide a sound sensation for those with severe sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), benefitting speech understanding and quality of life. Nevertheless, rates of implantation remain low, and limited research investigates journeys from traditional hearing aids to implantable devices.

Method

Fifty-five adults (≥ 50 years), hearing aid users and/or CI users, General Practitioners, and Australian and United Kingdom audiologists took part in a multi-methods study. Focus groups, interviews, and surveys were thematically analysed.

Results

One hundred forty-three data-capture events disclosed 2 themes: 1) “The burden of hearing loss and the impact of Cochlear Implants”, and 2) “Professional Support and Practice, and HCPs Roles and Responsibilities”.

Conclusions

Care experience can include convoluted, complex journeys towards cochlear implantation. The significant impact of this, as hearing loss progresses, motivates people to consider implants, but they and healthcare professionals need clear supported with defined referral pathways, and less system complexity.

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while still considered the gold standard approach in medical research, can encounter impediments to their successful conduct and the dissemination of results. Pretrial qualitative research can usefully address some of these impediments, including recruitment and retention, ethical conduct, and preferred methods of dissemination. However, pretrial qualitative work is rarely undertaken in audiology. The Comparison of outcomes with hearing aids and cochlear implants in adults with moderately severe-to-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (COACH) is a proposed RCT aiming to clarify when hearing aids (HAs) or cochlear implants (CIs) are the most suitable for different degrees of hearing loss and for which kinds of patients. q-COACH is a pretrial, qualitative study examining stakeholders' experiences of HAs and CIs, current clinical practices and stakeholders' perspectives of the design, conduct and dissemination plans for the proposed COACH study.

METHODS

Twenty-four participants including general practitioners, audiologists, adult HA users, and adult support networks undertook either semi-structured individual or paired interviews and completed demographic questionnaires. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Four key themes arose from this study: 1) rethinking sampling and recruitment strategies, 2) ethical considerations, 3) refining trial conduct, and 4) interconnected, appropriate and accessible methods of results dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative investigation identified key considerations for the proposed RCT design, conduct and dissemination to help with successful implementation of COACH, and to indicate a plan of action at all RCT stages that would be acceptable to potential participants. By drawing on the perspectives of multiple key stakeholders and including a more general discussion of their experience and opinions of hearing loss, hearing device use and service availability, the study revealed experiential and ethical paradigms in which stakeholders operate. In so doing, q-COACH has exposed the benefits of preliminary qualitative investigations that enable detailed and rich understandings of the phenomenon at stake, forestalling problems and improving the quality of trial design, conduct and dissemination, while informing future RCT development discussions.

Addressing clinical equipoise for hearing devices: the qualitative COACH (q-COACH) study protocol for Australian stakeholder involvement in the design of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Hearing loss is a common chronic problem which can be effectively managed with hearing devices. At present, only a limited number of people with hearing loss use hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs) to improve hearing and sound quality and enhance quality of life. Clinical equipoise, by which we mean healthcare professional uncertainty about which treatment options are the most efficacious due to the lack of evidence-based information, can lead to inconsistent and poorly informed referral processes for hearing devices.A randomised controlled trial (RCT) that offers high-quality, generalisable information is needed to clarify which hearing device (HA or CI) is more suitable for different degrees of hearing loss and for which kinds of patients. Qualitative research can improve this RCT, by gathering the information on patient and provider perspectives, attitudes and values, which can inform design, conduct and information dissemination, either during preparatory stages of an intervention, or as a fully integrated methodology. The Comparison of Outcomes with hearing Aids and Cochlear implants in adults with moderately severe-to-profound bilateral sensorineural Hearing loss (COACH) study is being planned as an RCT with a qualitative arm (the qualitative COACH study, q-COACH), acting as a pretrial intervention examining views of HAs, CIs, equipoise and the impetus for an RCT of this nature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The q-COACH study involves semistructured interviews and a demographic questionnaire which will be collected from four participant cohorts: General Practitioners (GPs) and Ear, Nose and Throat Surgeons (ENTs); audiologists; adult HA users and their support networks. Data will be analysed thematically and through descriptive statistics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia, granted ethical approval (no. 5201833514848). Peer-reviewed journal articles, research conferences and a final report will present study findings.

Role and Scope Coverage of Speech-Related Professionals Linked to Neuro-Advancements within the Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers

Speech-related professionals such as speech language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists make use of neuro-advancements including neurotechnologies such as cochlear implants (CIs), brain-computer interfaces, and deep brain stimulation. Speech-related professionals could occupy many roles in relation to their interaction with neuro-advancements reflecting the roles expected of them by their professional organizations. These roles include: service provider, promoter of neuro-products such as CIs, educator of others, neuro-related knowledge producer and researcher, advocates for their fields and their clients in relation to neuro-advancements, and influencers of neuro-policy, neuroethics and neuro-governance discussions. Lifelong learning, also known as professional development, is used as a mechanism to keep professionals up to date on knowledge needed to perform their work and could be used to support the fulfillment of all the roles in relation to neuro-advancements. Using 300 English language Canadian newspapers and academic articles from SCOPUS and the 70 databases of EBSCO-Host as sources, we found that the neuro-advancement content linked to speech-related professionals centered around CIs and brain computer interfaces, with other neuro-technologies being mentioned much less. Speech-related professionals were mostly mentioned in roles linked to clinical service provision, but rarely to not at all in other roles such as advocate, researcher or influencer of neuroethics and neuro-governance discussions. Furthermore, lifelong learning was not engaged with as a topic. The findings suggest that the mentioning of and engagement with roles of speech-related professionals linked to neuro-advancements falls short given the expectations of roles of speech-related professionals for example. We submit that these findings have implications for the education of speech-related professionals, how others perceive the role and identity of speech-related professionals, and how speech-related professionals perceive their own role.

The knowledge and beliefs regarding practical aspects of cochlear implants: A study of otorhinolaryngologists in a secondary setting in a multi-country study

OBJECTIVE

The main goal of this study was to determine the knowledge and beliefs of otorhinolaryngologists in a secondary setting in selected economically advanced European countries concerning severe hearing loss, hearing aids, and cochlear implants (CIs). Secondary goals of the study looked into the information sources of the otorhinolaryngologists and into key topics of importance for these professionals. In Europe, many adults, who could benefit from a CI, do not have one despite their availability via national health care systems. This lack of coverage might be due, in part, to the knowledge and beliefs of otorhinolaryngologists.

METHODS

Otorhinolaryngologists in a secondary setting in Germany, England, France, Austria, and Sweden were emailed a custom-made questionnaire on their knowledge and beliefs regarding hearing loss and its treatments. Results were presented in relative frequencies (%) according to each nation.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and forty otorhinolaryngologists responded (50 from each nation except Sweden). Each nation regarded rehabilitation and hearing preservation as particularly important in CIs. National and international conferences and conversations with colleagues were much more popular methods of keeping abreast of medical issues than other information sources such as online media or company information.

CONCLUSION

The otorhinolaryngologists of the surveyed nations share many common beliefs about hearing loss, hearing aids, and CIs, although some national variation in opinion is present. The otorhinolaryngologists of each nation are knowledgeable, but could still benefit from an increased knowledge and awareness of hearing loss treatment modalities.

Can routine office-based audiometry predict cochlear implant evaluation results?

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Determining cochlear implant candidacy requires a specific sentence-level testing paradigm in best-aided conditions. Our objective was to determine if findings on routine audiometry could predict the results of a formal cochlear implant candidacy evaluation. We hypothesize that findings on routine audiometry will accurately predict cochlear implant evaluation results in the majority of candidates.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational, diagnostic study.

METHODS

The charts of all adult patients who were evaluated for implant candidacy at a tertiary care center from June 2008 through June 2013 were included. Routine, unaided audiologic measures (pure-tone hearing thresholds and recorded monosyllabic word recognition testing) were then correlated with best-aided sentence-level discrimination testing (using either the Hearing in Noise Test or AzBio sentences test).

RESULTS

The degree of hearing loss at 250 to 4,000 Hz and monosyllabic word recognition scores significantly correlated with sentence-level word discrimination test results. Extrapolating from this association, we found that 86% of patients with monosyllabic word recognition scores at or below 32% (or 44% for patients with private insurance) would meet candidacy requirements for cochlear implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine audiometric findings can be used to identify patients who are likely to meet cochlear implant candidacy upon formal testing. For example, patients with pure-tone thresholds (250, 500, 1,000 Hz) of ≥75 dB and/or a monosyllabic word recognition test score of ≤40% have a high likelihood of meeting candidacy criteria. Utilization of these predictive patterns during routine audiometric evaluation may assist hearing health professionals in deciding when to refer patients for a formal cochlear implant evaluation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 127:216-222, 2017.