Effects of cochlear implants: a qualitative study

References

• Bergeron F, Ferron P (2005) Utility of ear implants: Can all benefits be valued? Cochlear Implants International 6 (Suppl. 1): 2–3. DOI: 10.1002/cii.268.
   Google Scholar
• Bess PH (2000) The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear and hearing 21(4 Suppl): 74S–79S.
   Google Scholar
• Bowling A (2001) Measuring disease: A review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. Buckingham / Philadelphia: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks DN (1990) Measures for the assessment of hearing aid provision and rehabilitation. British journal of audiology 24(4): 229–233.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chee GH, Goldring JE, Shipp DB, Ng AHC, Chen JM, Nedzelski JM (2004) Benefits of cochlear implantation in early-deafened adults: The Toronto experience. Journal of Otolaryngology 33(1): 26–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen SM, Labadie RF, Dietrich MS, Haynes DS (2004) Quality of life in hearing-impaired adults: the role of cochlear implants and hearing aids. Otolaryngology and head and neck surgery 131(4): 413–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crary WG, Wexler M, Berliner KI, Miller LW (1982) Psychometric studies and clinical interviews with cochlear implant patients. The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement 91(2 Pt 3): 55–58.
   Google Scholar
• Damen GW, Beynon AJ, Krabbe PF, Mulder JJ, Mylanus EA (2007) Cochlear implantation and quality of life in postlingually deaf adults: Long-term follow-up. Otolaryngology and head and neck surgery 136(4): 597–604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn CC, Tyler RS, Oakley S, Gantz BJ, Noble W (2008) Comparison of speech recognition and localization performance in bilateral and unilateral cochlear implant users matched on duration of deafness and age at implantation. Ear and Hearing 29(3): 352–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payers PM, Machin D (2000) Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Finlay L, Molano-Fisher P (2008) 'Transforming' self and world: a phenomenological study of a changing lifeworld following a cochlear implant. Medicine, health care, and philosophy 11(3): 255–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallberg LR, Ringdahl A (2004) Living with cochlear implants: experiences of 17 adult patients in Sweden. International journal of audiology 43(2): 115–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallberg LR, Ringdahl A, Holmes A, Carver C (2005) Psychological general well-being (quality of life) in patients with cochlear implants: importance of social environment and age. International journal of audiology 44(12): 706–711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helvik AS, Jacobsen G, Wennberg S, Arnesen H, Ringdahl A, Hallberg LR (2006) Activity limitation and participation restriction in adults seeking hearing aid fitting and rehabilitation. Disability and rehabilitation 28(5): 281–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF, Van Den Broek P (2000) Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngology and head and neck surgery 123(6): 756–765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschfelder A, Grabel S, Olze H (2008) The impact of cochlear implantation on quality of life: The role of audiologic performance and variables. Otolaryngology and head and neck surgery 138(3): 357–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan A (1997) Implant outcomes: towards a mixed methodology for evaluating the efficacy of adult cochlear implant programmes. Disability and rehabilitation 19(6): 235–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan A, Hawthorne G, Kethel L, Giles E, White K, Stewart M, Plath B, Code C (2001) Health-related quality-of-life outcomes from adult cochlear implantation: A cross-sectional survey. Cochlear Implants International 2(2): 115–128. DOI: 10.1002/cii.43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holmen JMK, Krüger Ø, Langhammer A, et al. (2003) The Nord-Trondelag Health Study 1995-97 (HUNT 2): Objectives, contents, methods and participation. Norsk Epidemiologi 13: 19–32.
   Google Scholar
• HUNT: Questionnaires used in the HUNT studies (2005) http://www.hunt.ntnu.no/index.php?side=forskning/undersok/sporreskjema [May 16 20081.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan DM, Shipp DB, Chen JM, Ng AHC, Nedzelski JM (2003) Early-Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Assessment of Outcomes. Journal of Otolaryngology 32(4): 245–249.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karinen PJ, Sorri MJ, Valimaa TT, Huttunen KH, Lopponen HJ (2001) Cochlear implant patients and quality of life. Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum (52): 48–50.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy V, Stephens D, Fitzmaurice P (2008) The Impact of Cochlear Implants From the Perspective of Significant Others of Adult Cochlear Implant Users. Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 4: 4.
   Google Scholar
• Klop WM, Boermans PP, Ferrier MB, Van Den Hout WB , Stiggelbout AM, Frijns JH (2008) Clinical Relevance of Quality of Life Outcome in Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deafened Adults. Otol Neurotol.
   Google Scholar
• Klop WM, Briaire JJ, Stiggelbout AM, Frijns JH (2007) Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in adults with prelingual deafness. The Laryngoscope 117(11): 1982–1987.
   Google Scholar
• Koch DB, Staller S, Jaax K, Martin E (2005) Bioengineering solutions for hearing loss and related disorders. Otolaryngologic clinics of North America 38(2): 255–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kou BS, Shipp DB, Nedzelski JM (1994) Subjective benefits reported by adult Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant users. The Journal of otolaryngology 23(1): 8–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krabbe PF, Hinderink JB, Van Den Broek P (2000) The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. International journal of technology assessment in health care 16(3): 864–873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassaletta L, Castro A, Bastarrica M, De Sarria MJ , Gavilan J (2006) Quality of life in postlingually deaf patients following cochlear implantation. European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology: offi-cial journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS): affili-ated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 263(3): 267–270.
   Google Scholar
• Liamputtong P, Ezzy D (2005) Qualitative research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maillet CJ, Tyler RS, Jordan HN (1995) Change in the quality of life of adult cochlear implant patients. The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement 165: 31–48.
   Google Scholar
• Malterud K (2003) Kvalitative metoder i medisinsk forskning: En innforing (Qualitative methods in medical research: An introduction). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott HJ (2004) Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends in amplification 8(2): 49–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller WL, Crabtree BF (Eds.) (1999) Doing Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Mo B (2005) Cochlear implants in adults: A study of quality of life. [Doctoral thesis]. Oslo, University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Mo B, Lindbaek M, Harris S (2005) Cochlear implants and quality of life: a prospective study. Ear and hearing 26(2): 186–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naess S, Mastekasa A, Moum T, Sorensen T (2001) Livskvalitet som psykisk velvwre (Quality of life as psychological well-being). Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring (NOVA).
   Google Scholar
• Neuman AC, Haravon A, Sislian N, Waltzman SB (2007) Sound-direction identification with bilateral cochlear implants. Ear and hearing 28(1): 73–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polit DF, Beck CT (2008) Nursing research. Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Ramsden RT (2002) Cochlear implants and brain stem implants. British medical bulletin 63: 183–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsden RT (2004) Prognosis after cochlear implantation. BMJ 328(7437): 419–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts TA, Grantham DW, Ashmead DH, Haynes DS, Labadie RF (2006) Speech recognition for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant modes in the presence of uncorrelated noise sources. Ear and hearing 27(6): 763–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens D (2003) Audiological rehabilitation. In Luxon L (Ed.) Textbook of Audiological Medi-cine. Clinical aspects of hearing and balance. London: Martin Dunitz, an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 513–531.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens D, Danermark B (2005) The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a conceptual framework for the impact of genetic hearing impairment. In Stephens D & Jones L (Eds.) The Impact of Genetic Hearing Impairment. 1st ed. London and Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers Ltd, pp. 54-67.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens D, Gianopoulos I, Kerr P (2001) Determination and classification of the problems experi-enced by hearing-impaired elderly people. Audiology 40(6): 294–300.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephens S, Meredith R (1991) Qualitative reports of hearing aid benefit. Clinical Rehabilitation (5): 225–229.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler RS, Kelsay D (1990) Advantages and disadvantages reported by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. American Journal of Otology 11(4): 282–289.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Werner O, Campbell D (1973) Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decen-tering. In Naroll R & Cohen R (Eds.) A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 398–420.
   Google Scholar
• Wexler M, Miller LW, Berliner KI, Crary WG (1982) Psychological effects of cochlear implant: patient and 'index relative' perceptions. The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement 91(2 Pt 3): 59–61.
   Google Scholar
• WHO: Grades of hearing impairment (2008) http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/hearing_impairment_grades/en/index.html [February 19, 2008 1.
   Google Scholar
• WHO: ICF online (2001a) http://www.whoint/classifications/icf/site/onlinebrowsedicf.cfm [March 9, 2008].
   Google Scholar
• WHO: International classification of functioning, disability and health (2001b) http://www.who.int/classification/icf [March 9, 2008 1.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao F, Stephens SD, Sim SW, Meredith R (1997) The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants. Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences 22(3): 254–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar