ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Family Language on Implanted Children's Communication Mode.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. 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.
- Impacts of hearing history, etiology, vestibular and balance function, and socioeconomic marginalization on developmental outcomes in children with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Family Language on Implanted Children's Communication Mode.The Laryngoscope · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveExamination of the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) and family language on communication mode after cochlear implant (CI). DATA SOURCES: Data on 176 children implanted at < 37 months were obtained from medical records including insurance type as a representation of SES, family language (English-only/Spanish-bilingual/Spanish requiring interpreter), habilitation (Oral only/Includes sign), age at CI(s), bilateral or unilateral CI, open-set speech perception (Yes/No).
methodsCommunication mode (Oral only/Includes sign) was the outcome of interest. Mean age at first CI = 20.8 months (6.7-36.8); mean follow-up = 5.8 years (1.1-10.4). Inferential statistical analyses, including regression analysis, were performed.
resultsOral-only communication was obtained in 84.9% of commercially insured compared to 33.7% of Medicaid-eligible children (p ≤ 0.001). Higher SES (commercially insured) with English-only parents more likely used oral-only communication than the other parental language groups (90.3% vs. 75.0% and 33.3%; p ≤ 0.001). All parental language groups of Medicaid-funded children had low rates of oral-only communication. SES accounted for most variance in whether oral-only communication was achieved, followed by open-set speech perception and age of first implant. Together, these accounted for 44% of variance (R
conclusionSES is a major contributing factor to spoken language outcomes in children receiving CIs through age 3 years. Children from bilingual Spanish-English or Spanish-only speaking families are less likely to use only spoken language than those from English-only families, but this difference appears to be influenced by lower SES and older age of implantation and not necessarily by exposure to other languages. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.