Benefits of auditory-verbal intervention for adult cochlear implant users: perspectives of users and their coaches.

OBJECTIVE: Post-implant rehabilitation is limited for adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. The objective of this research was to capture the perspectives of CI users and their coaches regarding their experiences with auditory-verbal intervention as an example of post-implant rehabilitation and their views on perceived benefits and challenges related to the intervention. DESIGN: This qualitative study involved semi-structured focus group interviews with adult CI users and their coaches who accompanied them in a 24-week auditory-verbal intervention program. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 17 participants (eight CI users and nine coaches) contributed to the interviews. RESULTS: Three key topic areas emerged from the interviews capturing CI users' and coaches' experiences related to the intervention program: (1) benefits of the intervention, (2) factors affecting experiences, and (3) challenges and barriers. Benefits included increased confidence in hearing, communication, social participation, and new knowledge about technology and hearing. Factors affecting the experience were participants' motivation and the therapist's skills. The primary challenge was the time commitment for weekly therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Both CI users and coaches perceived a focussed auditory-verbal intervention to be beneficial in improving speech understanding, confidence in using hearing, social interaction, and knowledge about technology. Participants recommended reducing the intensity of intervention to facilitate participation.

Adult validation of a self-administered tablet audiometer.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that rates of hearing loss are increasing more rapidly than the capacity of traditional audiometry resources for screening. A novel innovation in tablet, self-administered portable audiometry has been proposed as a solution to this discordance. The primary objective of this study was to validate a tablet audiometer with adult patients in a clinical setting. Secondarily, word recognition with a tablet audiometer was compared against conventional audiometry. METHODS: Three distinct prospective adult cohorts underwent testing. In group 1 and group 2 testing with the automated tablet audiometer was compared to standard sound booth audiometry. In Group 1, participants' pure tone thresholds were measured with an automated tablet audiometer in a quiet clinic exam room. In Group 2, participants completed monosyllabic word recognition testing using the NU-6 word lists. In Group 3, internal reliability was tested by having participants perform two automated tablet audiometric evaluation in sequence. RESULTS: Group 1 included 40 patients mean age was 54.7 ± 18.4 years old and 60% female; Group 2 included 44 participants mean age was 55.2 ± 14.8 years old and 68.2% female; Group 3 included 40 participants with mean age of 39.4 + 15.9 years old and 60.5% female. In Group 1, compared to standard audiometry, 95.7% (95% CI: 92.6-98.9%) of thresholds were within 10 dB. In Group 2, comparing word recognition results, 96.2% (95% CI: 89.5-98.7%) were clinically equivalent and within a critical difference range. In Group 3, One-way Intraclass Correlation for agreement for the both left- and right-ear pure tone average was 0.98. The mean difference between repeat assessments was 0 (SD = 2.1) in the left ear, and 0.1 (SD = 1.1) in the right ear. CONCLUSION: Puretone audiometry and word recognition testing appears valid when performed by non-healthcare experts using a tablet audiometer outside a sound booth in a quiet environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02761798. Registered April, 2016 < https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02761798>.