ArticleHNO2022
[Teletherapy after cochlear implantation during the COVID-19 pandemic].
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, digitalization in healthcare grew rapidly. Auditory training after cochlear implantation usually takes place face-to-face but social distancing interferes with this therapeutic approach. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn follow-up treatment, 42 adult cochlear implant (CI) users aged 53.8 (±15.6) years received video therapy 1 x/week for 5 weeks on a certified platform. After each therapy session, the technical process and therapeutic content were assessed. At the end of the study, usability and the relationship between therapist and patient were evaluated by patients and therapists using the System Usability Scale (SUS), a final questionnaire and by the Skala Therapeutische Allianz - Revised (STA-R). Furthermore, a cost-benefit analysis was done.
resultsUsability for both users was high (87.97 versus 93.0). Despite the lack of personal contact, therapeutic alliance was highly appreciated by patients and therapists (87.8% versus 84.8%). The main advantages for the patients were reductions in time and costs. In contrast, the rehabilitation center faced higher costs initially due to the longer time therapists needed to prepare the lessons. Technical problems had to be solved in > 75% of the first sessions but did not bother training thereafter. In total, 47.6% of the patients believe that teletherapy can completely fulfill their therapeutic needs.
conclusionVideo therapy has been judged as a useful tool by all users and the majority wants to continue. However, it remains questionable whether the therapist-patient relationship can be sufficiently maintained over a longer period and whether online therapy is as effective as face-to-face therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.