To evaluate the associations between proxy measures of socioeconomic status (SES) and usage of cochlear implants.
Study Design:
Retrospective case series.
Methods:
Usage outcomes were measured among patients with a cochlear implant and data logging at a tertiary care children’s hospital between 2002 and 2017. Time per day with cochlear implant turned on, coil off, and listening to speech in noise and speech in quiet were extracted from audiology records, averaging right and left ear usage for those with bilateral implants. Associations between cochlear implant usage and demographic factors such as insurance type and median household income for zip code were assessed.
Results:
There were 142 total patients; 74 had bilateral usage data. Mean on air time was 10.76 hours (SD: 4.4). Those with private insurance had 1.2 hour more on air time/day (P = .047) and 0.9 hour more quiet time/day (P = .011) compared to those with public insurance. Younger age at last visit was associated with increased speech in quiet (B = −.08; 95% CI: −0.12-[−0.05], P < .001) and coil off (B = −0.06; 95% CI: −0.11-[−0.02], P = .006). Younger age at implant was associated with longer duration since last data logging visit (B = −10.46; 95% CI: −18.41-[−2.51], P = .010), more daily use (on air; B = −0.23; 95% CI: −0.43-[−0.03], P = .026), and increased time spent listening to speech in noise (B = −0.07; 95% CI: −0.14-[−0.01], P = .024). No other significant associations between datalogging output and each proxy SES factor were found.
Conclusions:
Lack of private insurance and older age at implantation decreased access to binaural hearing for children and young adults with cochlear implants.
Van Naarden BraunKChristensenDDoernbergN, et al. Trends in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, intellectual disability, and vision impairment, metropolitan Atlanta, 1991–2010. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4): e0124120. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124120
3.
SternREYuehBLewisCNortonSSieKC.Recent epidemiology of pediatric cochlear implantation in the United States: disparity among children of different ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Laryngoscope. 2005; 115(1): 125–131. doi:10.1097/01.mlg.0000150698.61624.3c
4.
GordonKAWongDDValeroJJewellSFYooPPapsinBC.Use it or lose it? Lessons learned from the developing brains of children who are deaf and use cochlear implants to hear. Brain Topogr. 2011; 24(3–4): 204–219. doi:10.1007/s10548-011-0181-2
5.
EaswarVSanfilippoJPapsinBGordonK.Impact of consistency in daily device use on speech perception abilities in children with cochlear implants: datalogging evidence. J Am Acad Audiol. 2018; 29(9): 835–846. doi:10.3766/jaaa.17051
6.
GeersAENicholasJGSedeyAL.Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2003; 24(1 Suppl): 46S–58S. doi:10.1097/01.AUD.0000051689.57380.1B
7.
HartBRisleyTR.Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Brookes; 1995.
8.
VohrBRTopolDWatsonVSt PierreLTuckerR.The importance of language in the home for school-age children with permanent hearing loss. Acta Paediatr. 2014; 103(1): 62–69. doi:10.1111/apa.12441
9.
KralALenarzT.How the brain learns to listen: deafness and the bionic ear. e-Neuroforum. 2015; 21: 21–28. doi:10.1515/s13295-015-0004-0
10.
MoellerMPTomblinJB.An introduction to the outcomes of children with hearing loss study. Ear Hear. 2015; 36(Suppl 1): 4S–13S. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000210
11.
ElpersJLesterCShinnJBBushML.Rural family perspectives and experiences with early infant hearing detection and intervention: a qualitative study. J Community Health. 2016; 41(2): 226–233. doi:10.1007/s10900-015-0086-1
12.
LantosPMMaradiaga-PanayottiGBarberX, et al. Geographic and racial disparities in infant hearing loss. Otolaryngology. 2018; 159(6): 1051–1057. doi:10.1177/0194599818803305
SirinSR.Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research. Rev Educ Res. 2005; 75(3): 417–453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417
15.
ChangDTKoABMurrayGSArnoldJEMegerianCA.Lack of financial barriers to pediatric cochlear implantation: impact of socioeconomic status on access and outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol. 2010; 136(7): 648–657. doi:10.1001/archoto.2010.90
16.
ArmstrongMMareshABuxtonC, et al. Barriers to early pediatric cochlear implantation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; 77(11): 1869–1872. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.08.031
17.
WisemanKBWarner-CzyzAD.Inconsistent device use in pediatric cochlear implant users: prevalence and risk factors. Cochlear Implants Int. 2018; 19(3): 131–141. doi:10.1080/14670100.2017.1418161
18.
WisemanKBWarner-CzyzADKwonSFiorentinoKSweeneyM.Relationships between daily device use and early communication outcomes in young children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2021; 42(4): 1042–1053. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000999
19.
TolanMSerpasAMcElroyK, et al. Delays in sound recognition and imitation in underinsured children receiving cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; 143(1): 60–64. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2016.2730
20.
LieuJECKennaMAnneSDavidsonL. Hearing loss in children: a Review. JAMA. 2020; 324(21): 2195–2205. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17647
GagnonEBEskridgeHBrownKD.Pediatric cochlear implant wear time and early language development. Cochlear Implants Int. 2020; 21(2): 92–97. doi:10.1080/14670100.2019.1670487
23.
MarnaneVChingTY.Hearing aid and cochlear implant use in children with hearing loss at three years of age: predictors of use and predictors of changes in use. Int J Audiol. 2015; 54(8): 544–551. doi:10.3109/14992027.2015.1017660
24.
GuerzoniLCudaD.Speech processor data logging helps in predicting early linguistic outcomes in implanted children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; 101: 81–86. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.07.026
25.
TomblinJBHarrisonMAmbroseSEWalkerEAOlesonJJMoellerMP.Language outcomes in young children with mild to severe hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2015; 36(Suppl 1): 76S–91S. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000219
26.
NiparkoJKTobeyEAThalDJ, et al. Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA. 2010; 303(15): 1498–1506. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.451
27.
WieOBFalkenbergESTveteOTomblinB.Children with a cochlear implant: characteristics and determinants of speech recognition, speech-recognition growth rate, and speech production. Int J Audiol. 2007; 46(5): 232–243. doi:10.1080/14992020601182891
NicholasJGGeersAE.Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007; 50(4): 1048–1062. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/073)
30.
Le NormandMTMoreno-TorresI.The role of linguistic and environmental factors on grammatical development in French children with cochlear implants. Lingua. 2014; 139: 26–38. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.02.012
31.
HolzingerDDallMSanduvete-ChavesSSaldañaDChacón-MoscosoSFellingerJ.The impact of family environment on language development of children with cochlear implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear. 2020; 41(5): 1077–1091. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000852
32.
WalkerEAMcCreeryRWSpratfordM, et al. Trends and predictors of longitudinal hearing aid use for children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear. 2015; 36(Suppl 1): 38S–47S. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000208
33.
BooysenSle RouxTMasengeASwanepoelW.Predictors of hearing technology use in children. Int J Audiol. 2022; 61(4): 336–343. doi:10.1080/14992027.2021.1913521
34.
EaswarVSanfilippoJPapsinBGordonK.Factors affecting daily cochlear implant use in children: datalogging evidence. J Am Acad Audiol. 2016; 27(10): 824–838. doi:10.3766/jaaa.15138
35.
Garcia-SierraARamírez-EsparzaNKuhlPK.Relationships between quantity of language input and brain responses in bilingual and monolingual infants. Int J Psychophysiol. 2016; 110: 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.10.004
36.
SarantJHarrisDBennetLBantS.Bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implants in children: a study of spoken language outcomes. Ear Hear. 2014; 35(4): 396–409. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000022
37.
CullingtonHEBeleDBrintonJC, et al. United Kingdom national paediatric bilateral project: demographics and results of localization and speech perception testing. Cochlear Implants Int. 2017; 18(1): 2–22. doi:10.1080/14670100.2016.1265055
38.
ArchboldSMNikolopoulosTPLloyd-RichmondH.Long-term use of cochlear implant systems in paediatric recipients and factors contributing to non-use. Cochlear Implants Int. 2009; 10(1): 25–40. doi:10.1179/cim.2009.10.1.25
39.
SpencerLJGantzBJKnutsonJF.Outcomes and achievement of students who grew up with access to cochlear implants. Laryngoscope. 2004; 114(9): 1576–1581. doi:10.1097/00005537-200409000-00014
40.
ContreraKJChoiJSBlakeCRBetzJFNiparkoJKLinFR.Rates of long-term cochlear implant use in children. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 35(3): 426–430. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000243
41.
MajoranoMBrondinoMGuerzoniL, et al. Do acoustic environment characteristics affect the lexical development of children with cochlear implants? A longitudinal study before and after cochlear implant activation. Am J Audiol. 2021; 30(3): 602–615. doi:10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00104
42.
ChutePMNevinsME.Educational challenges for children with cochlear implants. Top Lang Disord. 2003; 23: 57–67. doi:10.1097/00011363-20030100000008
43.
BessFHHornsbyBW.Commentary: listening can be exhausting – fatigue in children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2014; 35(6): 592–599. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000099
44.
Pichora-FullerMKKramerSEEckertMA, et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear. 2016; 37(Suppl 1): 5S–27S. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000312
45.
CaldwellANittrouerS.Speech perception in noise by children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013; 56(1): 13–30. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0338)
46.
DettmanSJDowellRCChooD, et al. Long-term communication outcomes for children receiving cochlear implants younger than 12 months: a multicenter study. Otol Neurotol. 2016; 37(2): e82–e95. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000915
47.
GeersAENicholasJG.Enduring advantages of early cochlear implantation for spoken language development. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013; 56(2): 643–655. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0347)
48.
SpivakLSokolHAuerbachCGershkovichS.Newborn hearing screening follow-up: factors affecting hearing aid fitting by 6 months of age. Am J Audiol. 2009; 18(1): 24–33. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2008/08-0015)
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
