Bilateral Listening Skills Profile
30
Bilateral Listening Skills Profile UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. Devyanee Bele 11 April 2013
description
Bilateral Listening Skills Profile. UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. Devyanee Bele 11 April 2013. Aims. Background Audit data Analysis Take home message. Background . Developed by Ear Foundation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Bilateral Listening Skills Profile
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
