oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rehabilitation of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairment: why not cochlear implants?
Department of CLINTEC, Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Audiology and Neurotology, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Habilitation and Health, Hearing Organization, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Sciences Intervention and Technology, Department of CLINTEC, Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden; Department of Audiology and Neurotology, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, ENT, Central Hospital, Karlstad, Sweden; Audiological Research Center, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6667-9923
2019 (English)In: Acta Oto-Laryngologica, ISSN 0001-6489, E-ISSN 1651-2251, Vol. 139, no 7, p. 604-611Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: In Sweden, an estimated prevalence of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss is 0.2%, which corresponds to roughly 20,000. We know little about the use of cochlear implants (CIs) in this population and why not most of them are not offered CI.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reasons for no rehabilitation with CI among this patient group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 1076 patients in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology. A baseline questionnaire and the reason for no CI, was evaluated.

RESULTS: Only 14.5% of the patients started a CI investigation, and 8.5% were rehabilitated with CI. Significantly more women (56.5%) than men received CI. The most common reasons for not receiving CI, were hearing reason (30.5%), indicating satisfaction with technical equipment, and unknown reason (25%). The oldest patient group (81-100 years old) had the highest risk for unknown reasons. Patients receiving extended audiological rehabilitation (53.5%) had a significantly lower risk for unknown reasons.

CONCLUSIONS: It is worrying that the oldest patient group (81-100 years old) seemed to have fewer chances to start a CI investigation. An extended audiological rehabilitation increased the chances that professionals would discuss CI.

SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that surprisingly few patients are offered CI despite their severe-to-profound hearing loss.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019. Vol. 139, no 7, p. 604-611
Keywords [en]
Swedish quality register, audiological rehabilitation, cochlear implants, gender, quality-of-life, severe-to-profound hearing loss
National Category
Otorhinolaryngology General Practice
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-74348DOI: 10.1080/00016489.2019.1607976ISI: 000468672000001PubMedID: 31107122OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-74348DiVA, id: diva2:1317080
Note

Funding Agencies:

Stiftelsen Mo Gards Forskningsfond (MoFoF)  

Gunnar Arnbrinks Stiftelse  

Stiftelsen Tornspiran  

Stiftelsen Tysta Skolan 

Available from: 2019-05-21 Created: 2019-05-21 Last updated: 2019-08-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Carlsson, Per-Inge

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Carlsson, Per-Inge
In the same journal
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
OtorhinolaryngologyGeneral Practice

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 53 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf