Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:02:52.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge, attitude and practices regarding cochlear implants among medical doctors other than otolaryngologists: a prospective cross-sectional study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2022

Y Mounika Reddy Open the ORCID record for Y Mounika Reddy [Opens in a new window] ,
L Anjali ,
A Augustine ,
J Mary  and
P Ajay
Y Mounika Reddy*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Otology, Neurotology and Cochlear Implant Unit, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
L Anjali
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Otology, Neurotology and Cochlear Implant Unit, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
A Augustine
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Otology, Neurotology and Cochlear Implant Unit, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
J Mary
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Otology, Neurotology and Cochlear Implant Unit, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
P Ajay
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Otology, Neurotology and Cochlear Implant Unit, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Y Mounika Reddy, Department of Otolaryngology, Otology, Neurotology and Cochlear Implant Unit, Christian Medical College, Vellore 632004, Tamil Nadu, India E-mail: mounika304@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Cochlear implant is the standard treatment of choice for children and adults with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices regarding cochlear implant among doctors other than otolaryngologists in a tertiary care academic institution.

Method

A 24-item knowledge, attitude and practices questionnaire was developed based on an extensive literature review and expert opinion and was administered to 100 non-otolaryngologists in a tertiary care academic institution to be completed in about 15 minutes. The data obtained was analysed to assess knowledge, attitude and practices regarding cochlear implant in this group.

Results

The results showed that awareness regarding the option of cochlear implants for elderly and unilateral deafness was deficient. Surgeons and doctors in higher specialties did better when it came to practice related to cochlear implant. The age and experience of doctors also improved knowledge and practice with regards to cochlear implant.

Conclusion

Improving awareness about cochlear implants and their benefits among non-otolaryngology colleagues can ensure that more people who could potentially benefit from cochlear implants will receive appropriate counselling and referral.

Keywords

Cochlear ImplantSensorineural Hearing lossDeafnessKnowledgeSurveyQuestionnaire
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 136 , Issue 6 , June 2022 , pp. 492 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr Y Mounika Reddy takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Hogan, A, Taylor, A, Westcott, S. Audiologists' attitudes to cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2001;2:17–29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerra, AD, Sampaio, AL, Oliveira, CA, Serra, LS. Knowledge of cochlear implants in federal district audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and otolaryngologists. Revista CEFAC 2015;17:1055–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, JC. Psychometric Theory 3E. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-hill Education, 1994Google Scholar
Ben-Itzhak, D, Most, T, Weisel, A. Relationships among professionals' knowledge, experience, and expectations regarding cochlear implants. Am Ann Deaf 2005;150:329–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damen, GW, Beynon, AJ, Krabbe, PF, Mulder, JJ, Mylanus, EA. Cochlear implantation and quality of life in postlingually deaf adults: long-term follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136:597–604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Haese, PSC, Van Rompaey, V, De Bodt, M, Van de Heyning, P. The knowledge and beliefs regarding practical aspects of cochlear implants: a study of otorhinolaryngologists in a secondary setting in a multi-country study. Cochlear Implants Int 2018;19:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchfield, BB, Feldman, JJ, Dunbar, JL, Gardner, EN. The severely to profoundly hearing-impaired population in the United States: prevalence estimates and demographics. J Am Acad Audiol 2001;12:183–9Google ScholarPubMed
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3101.0-Australian Demographic Statistics. In: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 [13 March 2022]Google Scholar
Bierbaum, M, McMahon, CM, Hughes, S, Boisvert, I, Lau, AY, Braithwaite, J et al. Barriers and facilitators to cochlear implant uptake in Australia and the United Kingdom. Ear Hear 2020;41:374–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raine, C. Cochlear implants in the United Kingdom: awareness and utilization. Cochlear Implants Int 2013;14(supp1):32–710.1179/1467010013Z.00000000077CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holder, JT, Reynolds, SM, Sunderhaus, LW, Gifford, RH. Current profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant evaluation. Trends Hear 2018;22:2331216518755288Google ScholarPubMed
Sorkin, DL, Buchman, CA. Cochlear implant access in six developed countries. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:161–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayman, CD, Marsh, RR, Potsic, WP. Pediatric audiologists' views on cochlear implantation. Ann Otol, Rhinol Laryngol 2000;185:116–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chundu, S, Buhagiar, R. Audiologists’ knowledge of cochlear implants and their related referrals to the cochlear implant centre: pilot study findings from UK. Cochlear Implants Int 2013;14:213–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar