Quality of Life in Youth With Severe to Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Department of Otolaryngology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.79). 03/2013; 139(3):294-300. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.35
Source: PubMed


Adolescence is a life stage with rapid and major developmental changes, yet little is known about how these changes influence the quality of life of young people who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH).
To determine differences in the 3 domains of a hearing-specific quality-of-life instrument between youth who had severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss based on whether they used no technology, hearing aids, or cochlear implants.
A multi-institutional prospective cohort study.
A convenience sample of 11- to 18-year-old youths with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss recruited between January 1 and December 31, 2008.
Youth Quality of Life-Research Instrument and Youth Quality of Life Instrument-Deaf and Hard of Hearing (YQoL-DHH) scores. The YQoL-DHH was composed of 3 domains: participation, self-acceptance/advocacy, and stigma-related quality of life.
A total of 157 individuals participated. Overall mean (SD) age was 14.1 (2.3) years, and the female-male ratio was 82:75. Forty-nine individuals (31.2%) were not using any technology, 45 (28.7%) were using hearing aids, and 63 (40.1%) were using cochlear implants. Mean age of unilateral or first cochlear implant was 62.9 months. Thirty-eight individuals (24.2%) attended schools with DHH programs, 55 (35.0%) attended schools without DHH programs, and 58 (36.9%) attended schools for the deaf. Statistically significant differences were noted in YQoL-DHH participation and perceived stigma scores between the groups when stratified by technology used and school setting.
These data suggest that the domains of quality of life as measured by our instrument differ significantly among youth based on technology used and school setting. Youth using no technology or cochlear implants tended to score higher than those using hearing aids in mainstream schools with or without DHH programs and in schools for the deaf. The YQoL-DHH instrument is able to detect differences in quality of life within a group of youth with severe to profound hearing loss.

14 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of review: Quality of life (QOL) is an important patient-oriented outcome in common disorders, particularly when one management strategy is not clearly superior to an alternative. This article reviews the recently published literature that evaluated QOL in children with common pediatric otolaryngologic problems. Recent findings: Among the 41 reviewed articles that used QOL as an outcome, 14 disease-specific QOL surveys and 12 generic QOL questionnaires were used. QOL instruments that had been validated in adults were frequently used in children without validation in pediatric populations. For children, parent-reported outcomes of caregiver concerns are often used as proxy measures of QOL for the child, and only a few QOL instruments asked the child to rate their own perception of their QOL. Several studies used nonvalidated QOL surveys as outcomes. Summary: QOL is being evaluated in an increasing number of pediatric otolaryngologic disorders. Although there are numerous surveys to measure generic pediatric QOL, validated disease-specific surveys for children are less common, especially those that utilize child self-report. The lack of disease-specific pediatric surveys for otolaryngologic disorders hampers the ability to document change or differences in patient-oriented outcomes with interventions.
    Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery 09/2014; 22(6). DOI:10.1097/MOO.0000000000000105 · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a common intervention for severe-to-profound hearing loss in high-income countries, but is not commonly available to children in low resource environments. Owing in part to the device costs, CI has been assumed to be less economical than deaf education for low resource countries. The purpose of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of the two interventions for children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in a model using disability adjusted life years (DALYs). Cost estimates were derived from published data, expert opinion, and known costs of services in Nicaragua. Individual costs and lifetime DALY estimates with a 3% discounting rate were applied to both two interventions. Sensitivity analysis was implemented to evaluate the effect on the discounted cost of five key components: implant cost, audiology salary, speech therapy salary, number of children implanted per year, and device failure probability. The costs per DALY averted are $5,898 and $5,529 for CI and deaf education, respectively. Using standards set by the WHO, both interventions are cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis shows that when all costs set to maximum estimates, CI is still cost-effective. Using a conservative DALY analysis, both CI and deaf education are cost-effective treatment alternatives for severe-to-profound SNHL. CI intervention costs are not only influenced by the initial surgery and device costs but also by rehabilitation costs and the lifetime maintenance, device replacement, and battery costs. The major CI cost differences in this low resource setting were increased initial training and infrastructure costs, but lower medical personnel and surgery costs.
    Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 07/2015; 36(8). DOI:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000809 · 1.79 Impact Factor