Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39299965›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025

Illness perceptions in cochlear implant users - a longitudinal study.

Effi Katharina Lehmann, Katharina Heinze-Köhler, Cynthia Glaubitz, Tim Liebscher, Max Engler, Ulrich Hoppe

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Effi Katharina LehmannCICERO Cochlear Implant Center, ENT-clinic of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. effi.katharina.lehmann@fau.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4165-1915
Katharina Heinze-KöhlerCICERO Cochlear Implant Center, ENT-clinic of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7538-8415
Cynthia GlaubitzCICERO Cochlear Implant Center, ENT-clinic of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8147-9751
Tim LiebscherCICERO Cochlear Implant Center, ENT-clinic of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1522-5571
Max EnglerCICERO Cochlear Implant Center, ENT-clinic of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9547-2048
Ulrich HoppeCICERO Cochlear Implant Center, ENT-clinic of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8565-0349

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose'Illness perceptions' refers to the thoughts and ideas a person has about an illness. According to Leventhal's Self-Regulatory Model (SRM), changing the threatening illness perceptions of cochlear implant (CI) recipients can be a further step in optimizing hearing outcomes with the CI. The aims of the present study were to assess users' illness perceptions and to determine whether perceptions change during six months of CI rehabilitation.

methodsOne hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief IPQ), assessing their illness perceptions on nine scales. Data were collected at a German CI center at first CI fitting and six-month follow-up. After first fitting, participants underwent intensive rehabilitation including auditory training, medical, audiological and psychological treatments.

resultsAt both assessments, participants tended to view their hearing impairment as a severe threat. On the Brief IPQ, the 'consequences' assessment improved during CI rehabilitation, which can be explained by the CI-induced hearing improvement. However, 'understanding' and 'identity' assessments worsened. This could be because CI recipients only come to realize the full complexity of their hearing impairment during rehabilitation. The other scales and the total score remained unaffected.

conclusionsCurrent practice in CI rehabilitation seems to be insufficient to improve threatening illness perceptions (except for perceived consequences). This may be because standard information often fails to reach the patients. The development and empirical validation of an intervention program to address individual illness perceptions in CI recipients could be helpful in this context. Further research will be needed to confirm the results.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHearing LossAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesBrief IPQCochlear implant (CI)Common-sense model of illness representations (CSM)CopingHearing impairmentIllness perceptionsLeventhal’s Self-Regulatory Model (SRM)

Identifiers

PMID39299965
PMCPMC11805857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.