ArticleEar and hearing
Changes in Outcomes Expectations During the Cochlear Implant Evaluation Process.
Article in Ear and hearing. 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.
- Cochlear Implants and Adult Patient Experiences, Adaptation and Challenges: A Survey.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with Preoperative Patient Expectations in the Cochlear Implant Evaluation Process.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPatient expectations are a critical factor in determining cochlear implant (CI) candidacy. However, minimal data are available on how potential CI recipients develop their expectations and if expectations can be modified by providers. In addition, there is little insight into the resources patients use to inform their decision to undergo implantation. This project aims to assess (1) the role of the CI evaluation (CIE) process on patients' expectations, (2) the extent to which patients' pre-CI outcome expectations can be modified, (3) the information patients use to inform their expectations, and patients' preferences for the discussion/display of potential CI outcomes.
designProspective mixed methods study of 32 adult CI patients undergoing CIEs. Outcome measures included: pre-CI Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-35 Profile scores (CIQOL-35 Profile); pre-CIE/post-CIE/day of surgery CIQOL-Expectations scores; post-CIE/day of surgery Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) scores; and pre-CI aided CNC-word and AzBio sentence scores. Thematic analyses of key informant interviews with 19 potential CI recipients were also performed.
resultsIn aim 1, CI CIQOL-Expectation domain scores remained essentially unchanged following the CIE when averaged across all participants ( d = 0.01 to 0.17). However, changes in expectations were observed for many participants at the individual level. Regarding the second aim, participants with higher pre-CIE expectations showed a decrease in expectations following the CIE for all CIQOL domains except emotional and social ( d = -0.27 to -0.77). In contrast, the only significant change in participants with lower expectations was an increase in expectations in the environment score from pre-CIE to the day of surgery ( d = 0.76). Expectations remained essentially unchanged or continued to change in the same direction between the post-CIE and the day of surgery, narrowing the gap between participants with higher and lower expectations. Overall, participants demonstrated low overall conflict related to their decision to proceed with cochlear implantation (mean DCS of 11.4 post-CIE and 14.2 at time of surgery out of 100) but DCS scores were higher for participants with lower pre-CIE expectations ( d = 0.71). In aim 3, key informant interviews demonstrated no differences between the low- and high expectation cohorts regarding resources used to develop their perception of CI outcomes. Potential CI recipients placed high value in talking with patients who had previously received a CI, and preferred discussing CI functional abilities via clinical vignettes described in the CIQOL Functional Staging System rather than by discussing speech recognition or CIQOL-35 Profile scores.
conclusionsThe results of the present study suggest that, although overall expectations averaged across the cohort remained essentially unchanged, individual participants' pre-CI expectations can be modified and there is value in measuring these expectations using the CIQOL-Expectations tool to determine if they are realistic. This information can then be utilized during personalized counseling to present a more accurate representation of likely CI outcomes for each patient. Discussions between potential CI recipients and current CI users may also provide valuable information to inform their expectations. In addition, communicating potential CI benefits using CIQOL functional stages and associated clinical vignettes may result in more realistic patient expectations and support shared decision-making related to CI surgery.
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.