Bilateral Listening Skills Profile UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. Devyanee Bele 11 April...
-
Upload
joelle-yelvington -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Bilateral Listening Skills Profile UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. Devyanee Bele 11 April...
Bilateral Listening Skills ProfileUK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit.
Devyanee Bele11 April 2013
Aims
• Background
• Audit data
• Analysis
• Take home message
Background
• Developed by Ear Foundation
• Questions taken from Infant Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (Zimmerman-Philips et al) and paediatric version of Speech Spatial Qualities (Reeder & Firszt 2006)
• Assesses listening skills mostly in adverse listening conditions
Background cont
Audit data0 pre CI 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr
SIM not applicable
√ √ √
SEQ √ √ √ √
Analysis
• Themes extracted after factor analysis
Speech
Quality
Localisation
Analysis
• Comparison of SIM and SEQ group across test intervals
• Comparison of unilateral and bilateral group against ‘time in sound’
n= 308 186 263 81 137 22 32
n= 293 165 244 75 127 19 32
n= 292 171 246 74 130 20 30
12
n= 165 8 75 16 19 37
13
n= 186 8 81 19 22 37
14
n= 171 8 74 18 20 34
Take Home Message
(1) Comparison of SIM vs SEQ across test intervals : no difference between SIM and SEQ group
(2) Comparison of bilaterals vs unilaterals across ‘time in sound’ : bilateral group is significantly better than unilateral group
Parent Outcome Profile questionnaireUK National Paediatric Bilateral
Audit.
Devyanee Bele11 April 2013
Acknowledgement
Robin Gransier, Erasmus student
University of Leuven
Aims
• Background
• Audit data
• Analysis
• Take home message
Background
• Developed by Archbold et al (2002)
• 74 questions and different themes (e.g. communication, process of implantation etc )
• Issues important for parents rather than what professionals feel is important
• High test-retest reliability
Background cont
Audit data0 pre CI 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr
SIM not applicable
√ limited data (<30)
not applicable
SEQ √ √ limited data(<30)
not applicable
Consortium decided to stop use of POP/POP2
in April 2011
POP2- allowed parents to compare outcome of 1CI to
both CIs
Analysis
• Themes extracted after factor analysis
education and social adjustment
communication
family relationships
Analysis cont
• Effect of 2nd CI (i.e. improvement attributed to 2nd CI)
• Relationship between this improvement and the age of implantation for 2nd CI
My child received benefit from the 2nd CI
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
N=115
Relationship of benefit & age at implantation of 2nd CI
Subjects : included seq children who had 1st CI < 5yrs of age
Divided into 3 groups based on age at 2nd CI
1. children who had 2nd CI < 5yrs
2. children had 2nd CI between 5-10 yrs of age
3. children who had 2nd CI between 10-15 yrs of age
My child received benefit from the 2nd CI
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
N 33 68 27
My child received benefit from the 2nd CI
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
N 33 68 27
My child received benefit from the 2nd CI
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
N 33 68 27
Take Home Message• For all themes of POP (communication, family
relationships and education & social adjustment)
(1)Children show significant improvement with two CIs compared to one CI
(2)Children who receive 2nd CI before 5 yrs of age do significantly better compared to children who received 2nd CI at 5-10 yrs and 10-15 yrs of age