↓ Skip to main content

Patient Benefit Following Bimodal CI-provision: Self-reported Abilities vs. Hearing Status

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient Benefit Following Bimodal CI-provision: Self-reported Abilities vs. Hearing Status
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00753
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth Wallhäusser-Franke, Tobias Balkenhol, Svetlana Hetjens, Nicole Rotter, Jerome J. Servais

Abstract

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes gain importance for the assessment of auditory abilities in cochlear implant users and for the evaluation of auditory rehabilitation. Aims of the study were to explore the interrelation of self-reported improvements in auditory ability with improvements in speech comprehension and to identify factors other than audiological improvement that affect self-reported auditory ability. Study Design: Explorative prospective analysis using a within-subjects repeated measures design. Setting: Academic tertiary care center. Participants: Twenty-seven adult participants with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who received a HiRes 90K CI and continued use of a HA at the non-implanted ear (bimodal hearing). Intervention: Cochlear implantation. Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported auditory ability/disability assessed by the comparative version of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ-B), and monosyllable as well as sentence comprehension in quiet and within speech modulated noise from different directions assessed pre- as well as 3 and 6 months post-implantation. Results: Data of 17 individuals were analyzed. At the endpoint of the study, improvement of self-reported auditory ability was significant. Regarding audiometric measures, significant improvement was seen for CI-aided pure tone thresholds, for monaural CI-assisted and bimodal sentence comprehension in quiet and in speech-modulated noise that was presented from the same source or at the side of the HA-ear. Correlations between self-reported and audiometric improvements remained weak, with the exception of the improvement seen for monaural CI-aided sentence comprehension in quiet and self-perceived improvement of sound quality. Considerable correlations existed between self-reported improvements and current level of depression and anxiety, and with general self-efficaciousness. Regression analyses substantiated a positive influence of self-efficaciousness on self-reported improvement in speech comprehension and between the improvement of monaural CI-aided sentence comprehension in quiet and perceived sound quality as well as a negative influence of anxiety on self-reported improvement in spatial hearing. Self-reported improvements were significantly better in the subgroup with intensive as compared to regular rehabilitation. Conclusions: Self-reported auditory ability/disability represents an important measure for the success of bimodal CI-provision. It is influenced by personal and mental health factors that may improve CI-rehabilitation results if addressed during rehabilitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 5 11%
Unspecified 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 25%
Unspecified 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,533,292
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#9,027
of 12,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,647
of 337,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#209
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.