↓ Skip to main content

Mental health problems in adolescents with cochlear implants: peer problems persist after controlling for additional handicaps

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Mental health problems in adolescents with cochlear implants: peer problems persist after controlling for additional handicaps
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00953
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Huber, Thorsten Burger, Angelika Illg, Silke Kunze, Alexandros Giourgas, Ludwig Braun, Stefanie Kröger, Andreas Nickisch, Gerhard Rasp, Andreas Becker, Annerose Keilmann

Abstract

The aims of the present multi-center study were to investigate the extent of mental health problems in adolescents with a hearing loss and cochlear implants (CIs) in comparison to normal hearing (NH) peers and to investigate possible relations between the extent of mental health problems of young CI users and hearing variables, such as age at implantation, or functional gain of CI. The survey included 140 adolescents with CI (mean age = 14.7, SD = 1.5 years) and 140 NH adolescents (mean age = 14.8, SD = 1.4 years), their parents and teachers. Participants were matched by age, gender and social background. Within the CI group, 35 adolescents were identified as "risk cases" due to possible and manifest additional handicaps, and 11 adolescents were non-classifiable. Mental health problems were assessed with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in the versions "Self," "Parent," and "Teacher." The CI group showed significantly more "Peer Problems" than the NH group. When the CI group was split into a "risk-group" (35 "risk cases" and 11 non-classifiable persons) and a "non-risk group" (n = 94), increased peer problems were perceived in both CI subgroups by adolescents themselves. However, no further differences between the CI non-risk group and the NH group were observed in any rater. The CI risk-group showed significantly more hyperactivity compared to the NH group and more hyperactivity and conduct problems compared to the CI non-risk group. Cluster analyses confirmed that there were significantly more adolescents with high problems in the CI risk-group compared to the CI non-risk group and the NH group. Adolescents with CI, who were able to understand speech in noise had significantly less difficulties compared to constricted CI users. Parents, teachers, and clinicians should be aware that CI users with additionally special needs may have mental health problems. However, peer problems were also experienced by CI adolescents without additional handicaps.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Engineering 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 18 32%
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 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#19,013,042
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,352
of 32,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,356
of 267,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#447
of 559 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 267,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 559 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.