1 / 30

Bilateral Listening Skills Profile

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

gene
Download Presentation

Bilateral Listening Skills Profile

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bilateral Listening Skills Profile UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. DevyaneeBele11 April 2013

  2. Aims • Background • Audit data • Analysis • Take home message

  3. 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

  4. Background cont

  5. Audit data

  6. Analysis • Themes extracted after factor analysis Speech Quality Localisation

  7. Analysis • Comparison of SIM and SEQ group across test intervals • Comparison of unilateral and bilateral group against ‘time in sound’

  8. n= 308 186 263 81 137 22 32

  9. n= 293 165 244 75 127 19 32

  10. n= 292 171 246 74 130 20 30

  11. n= 165 8 75 16 19 37

  12. n= 186 8 81 19 22 37

  13. n= 171 8 74 18 20 34

  14. Take Home Message (1) Comparison of SIM vs SEQ across test intervals : no difference between SIM and SEQ group (2) Comparison of bilateralsvsunilaterals across ‘time in sound’ : bilateral group is significantly better than unilateral group

  15. Parent Outcome Profile questionnaire UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. DevyaneeBele11 April 2013

  16. Acknowledgement Robin Gransier, Erasmus student University of Leuven

  17. Aims • Background • Audit data • Analysis • Take home message

  18. 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

  19. Background cont

  20. Audit data POP2- allowed parents to compare outcome of 1CI to both CIs Consortium decided to stop use of POP/POP2 in April 2011

  21. Analysis • Themes extracted after factor analysis education and social adjustment communication family relationships

  22. 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

  23. My child received benefit from the 2nd CI N=115 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

  24. 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 2ndCI between 10-15 yrs of age

  25. My child received benefit from the 2nd CI N 33 68 27 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

  26. My child received benefit from the 2nd CI N 33 68 27 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

  27. My child received benefit from the 2nd CI N 33 68 27 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

  28. Take Home Message • For all themes of POP (communication, family relationships and education & social adjustment) • Children show significant improvement with two CIs compared to one CI • 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

More Related