Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
HYPOTHESIS PAPER
Holistic rehabilitation of cochlear implant users: using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
1
Implants and Auditory Perception Department, Institute of Pathology and Physiology of Hearing, Poland
2
University Department Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium
3
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp University, Belgium
4
Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Würzburg, Comprehensive Hearing Center, Würzburg, Germany
5
Department of Clinical Research, Med-El Medical Electronics, Innsbruck, Austria
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Submission date: 2022-11-28
Acceptance date: 2023-02-08
Online publication date: 2023-04-28
Publication date: 2023-04-28
Corresponding author
Artur Lorens
Implants and Auditory Perception Department, Institute of Pathology and Physiology of Hearing, Mokra 17, 05-830, Kajetany, Poland
Implants and Auditory Perception Department, Institute of Pathology and Physiology of Hearing, Mokra 17, 05-830, Kajetany, Poland
J Hear Sci 2023;13(1):19-25
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The purpose of this article is to propose how the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), particularly the ICF core sets for hearing loss, can be used to plan and evaluate the holistic (re)habilitation of cochlear implant recipients.
Material and methods:
The opinions of HearRing experts were gathered on what – based on their clinical experience – are the most relevant ICF categories and codes to describe audiological rehabilitation after cochlear implantation. For each ICF category, the most commonly used audiological assessment tools and methods were identified.
Results:
The most relevant codes for Body functions and structures, Activities and Participation as well as Environmental factors were identified. These were the following. Body structures: structure of the inner ear (s260), auditory nerve (s260), brainstem (s1105), midbrain (s1101), diencephalon (s1102), and cortical lobe (s110). Hearing functions: sound detection (b2300), sound discrimination (b2301), localization of sound source (b2302), lateralization of sound (b2303), and speech discrimination (b2304). Activities and participation: listening (d115); communicating with (receiving) spoken messages (d310); handling stress and other psychological demands (d240); using communication devices and techniques (d360); conversation (d350); family relationships (d760); school education (d820); paid employment (d850); and community life (d910). Environmental factors: sounds (e250), products and technology for communication (e125), immediate family (e310), attitudes of immediate family members (e410), societal attitudes (e460), health professionals (e355), and health services, systems, and policies (e580).
Conclusions:
Using the ICF can help target the holistic (re)habilitation of cochlear implant recipients. By providing a common language, it can enable clearer communication across disciplines, and closer comparison between different studies, which is essential for meta-analyses.
The purpose of this article is to propose how the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), particularly the ICF core sets for hearing loss, can be used to plan and evaluate the holistic (re)habilitation of cochlear implant recipients.
Material and methods:
The opinions of HearRing experts were gathered on what – based on their clinical experience – are the most relevant ICF categories and codes to describe audiological rehabilitation after cochlear implantation. For each ICF category, the most commonly used audiological assessment tools and methods were identified.
Results:
The most relevant codes for Body functions and structures, Activities and Participation as well as Environmental factors were identified. These were the following. Body structures: structure of the inner ear (s260), auditory nerve (s260), brainstem (s1105), midbrain (s1101), diencephalon (s1102), and cortical lobe (s110). Hearing functions: sound detection (b2300), sound discrimination (b2301), localization of sound source (b2302), lateralization of sound (b2303), and speech discrimination (b2304). Activities and participation: listening (d115); communicating with (receiving) spoken messages (d310); handling stress and other psychological demands (d240); using communication devices and techniques (d360); conversation (d350); family relationships (d760); school education (d820); paid employment (d850); and community life (d910). Environmental factors: sounds (e250), products and technology for communication (e125), immediate family (e310), attitudes of immediate family members (e410), societal attitudes (e460), health professionals (e355), and health services, systems, and policies (e580).
Conclusions:
Using the ICF can help target the holistic (re)habilitation of cochlear implant recipients. By providing a common language, it can enable clearer communication across disciplines, and closer comparison between different studies, which is essential for meta-analyses.
REFERENCES (50)
1.
Silva Drummond A, Ferreira Sampaio R, Cotta Mancini M, et al. Linking the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. J Hand Ther, 2007; 20(4): 336‒43. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.....
2.
Schiariti V, Mahdi S, Bölte S. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Sets for cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorder, and attention–deficit–hyperactivity disorder. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2018; 60(9): 933‒41. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.1....
3.
Karlsson E, Mäki-Torkko E, Widén S, et al. Validation of the Brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core set for hearing loss: an international multicentre study. Int J Audiol, 2021; 60(6): 412‒20. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
4.
van Leeuwen LM, Pronk M, Merkus P, et al. Operationalization of the Brief ICF Core Set for Hearing Loss: an ICF-based e-intake tool in clinical otology and audiology practice. Ear Hear, 2020; 41(6): 1533‒44. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.00....
5.
Granberg S, Möller K, Skagerstrand A, et al. The ICF Core Sets for hearing loss: researcher perspective, Part II: Linking outcome measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Int J Audiol, 2014; 53(2): 77‒87. https://doi.org/10.3109/149920....
6.
Granberg S, Swanepoel DW, Englund U, et al. The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: International expert survey on functioning and disability of adults with hearing loss using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Int J Audiol, 2014; 53(8): 497‒506. https://doi.org/10.3109/149920....
7.
Granberg S, Pronk M, Swanepoel DW, et al. The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: functioning and disability from the patient perspective. Int J Audiol, 2014; 53(11): 777–86. https://doi.org/10.3109/149920....
8.
Meyer C, Grenness C, Scarinici N, et al. What is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and why is it relevant to audiology? Semin Hear, 2016; 37(3): 163‒86. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036....
9.
Morettin M, Alves Cardoso MR, Malavasi Delamura A, et al. Use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for monitoring patients using cochlear implants. Codas, 2013; 25(3): 216‒23. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2317-....
10.
Psarros C, Love S. The role of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability in models of infant cochlear implant management. Semin Hear, 2016; 37(3): 272‒90. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036....
11.
Agabigum B, Mir A, Arianpour K, et al. Evolving trends in cochlear implantation: a critical look at the older population. Otol Neurotol, 2018; 39(8): e660‒64. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.00....
12.
Fakurnejad S, Vail D, Song Y, et al. Trends in age of cochlear implant recipients, and the impact on perioperative complication rates. Otol Neurotol, 2020; 41(4): 438‒43. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.00....
13.
Stucki G, Pollock A, Engkasan JP, et al. How to use the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference system for comparative evaluation and standardized reporting of rehabilitation interventions. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 2019; 55(3): 384‒94. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973....
14.
Danermark B, Granberg S, Kramer SE, et al. The creation of a comprehensive and a brief core set for hearing loss using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Am J Audiol, 2013; 22(2): 323‒8.
https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0...)
15.
Brandt EN Jr, Pope A, editors. Enabling America: Assessing the Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1997.
16.
Nagi SZ. Disability concepts revisited: implications for prevention. In: Pope A, Tarlov A, editors. Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1991.
17.
British Society of Audiology. Common principles of rehabilitation for adults with hearing- and/or balance-related problems in routine audiology services. Practice Guidance. 2012. Available from: http: //www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Practice-Guidance-Common-Principles-of-Rehabilitation-for-Adults-in-Audiology-Services-2016.pdf [Accessed 11.03.2020].
18.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2001. Available from: https: //www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/ [Accessed 11.03.2020].
19.
Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, Bilski D. [International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health]. Orzecznictwo Lekarskie, 2014; 9(1): 19‒27 [in Polish].
20.
Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Wąsowski A, et al. Objective method of paediatric cochlear implant system fitting. New Medicine, 2004; 4: 109‒11.
21.
Neuburger J, Lenarz T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, et al. Spontaneous increases in impedance following cochlear implantation: suspected causes and management. Int J Audiol, 2009; 48(5): 233‒9. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
22.
Walkowiak A, Lorens A, Polak M, et al. Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec, 2011; 73(4): 189‒95. https://doi.org/10.1159/000326....
23.
Walkowiak A, Kostek B, Lorens A, et al. Spread of Excitation (SoE): a non-invasive assessment of cochlear implant electrode placement. Cochlear Implants Int, 2010; 11(Suppl 1): 479‒81. https://doi.org/10.1179/146701....
24.
Skarżyński H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A. A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit, 2003; 9(4): CS20‒4.
26.
Steel MM, Abbasalipour P, Salloum CA, et al. Unilateral cochlear implant use promotes normal-like loudness perception in adolescents with childhood deafness. Ear Hear, 2014; 35(6): 291‒301. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.00....
27.
Vaerenberg B, Smits C, De Ceulaer G, et al. Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art. Scientific World Journal, 2014; 2014: 501738. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/5....
28.
van Zon A, Peters JP, Stegeman I, et al. Cochlear implantation for patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetrical hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. Otol Neurotol, 2015; 36(2): 209‒19.
29.
Wilson BS, Dorman MF, Woldorff MG, et al. Cochlear implants matching the prosthesis to the brain and facilitating desired plastic changes in brain function. Prog Brain Res, 2011; 194: 117‒29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0...
30.
Kahneman D. Attention and Effort: Measurement. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1973.
31.
Zhao F, Stephens SD, Sim SW, et al. The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 1997; 22(3): 254‒9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365....
32.
Shafiro V, Sheft S, Kuvadia S, et al. Environmental sound training in cochlear implant users. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2015; 58(2): 509‒19. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_J....
33.
McMahon KR, Moberly AC, Shafiro V, et al. Environmental sound awareness in experienced cochlear implant users and cochlear implant candidates. Otol Neurotol, 2018; 39(10): e964‒71. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.00....
34.
Stephens D, Hétu R. Impairment, disability and handicap in audiology: towards a consensus. Audiology, 1991; 30(4): 185‒200.
https://doi.org/10.3109/002060...
35.
Hughes KC, Galvin KL. Measuring listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants or normal hearing. Cochlear Implants Int, 2013; 14(3): 121‒9. https://doi.org/10.1179/175476....
36.
Francis A, Nusbaum H. Effects of intelligibility on working memory demand for speech perception. Atten Percept Psychophys, 2009; 71(6): 1360‒74. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71....
37.
Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear, 1995; 16(2): 176‒86. https://doi.org/10.1097/000034....
38.
Obrycka A, García JL, Pankowska A, et al. Production and evaluation of a Polish version of the LittlEars questionnaire for the assessment of auditory development in infants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2009; 73(7): 1035‒42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpo....
39.
Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, et al. Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 2008; 47(Suppl 2): S99‒105. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
40.
Huitt W. The Information Processing Approach to Cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta: Valdosta State University; 2003.
41.
Clark JG, Martin FN. Effective Counseling in Audiology: Perspectives and Practice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1994.
42.
Tye-Murray N. Communication strategies training [monograph]. J Acad Rehabil Audiol, 1994; 27(Suppl): 193‒207.
43.
Mahncke HW, Connor BB, Appelman J, et al. Memory enhancement in healthy older adults using a brain plasticity-based training program: a randomized, controlled study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2006; 103(33): 12523‒8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0....
44.
Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB, Henning SC, et al. Working memory training for children with cochlear implants: a pilot study. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2011; 54(4): 1182‒96. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4...)
45.
Kamusińska E. [The importance of complex rehabilitation in the integration process of disabled people with society]. Studia Medyczne, 2008; 9: 83‒6 [in Polish].
46.
Smith L, Bartel L, Joglekar S, et al. Musical rehabilitation in adult cochlear implant recipients with a self-administered software. Otol Neurotol, 2017; 38(8): e262‒7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.00....
47.
Yuba T, Itoh T, Kaga K. Unique technological voice method (The YUBA Method) shows clear improvement in patients with cochlear implants in singing. J Voice, 2009; 23(1): 119‒24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoi....
48.
Klink B, Praetorius M, Roder S, et al. [Dance projects as an integral part of CI rehabilitation and their importance for mental health]. HNO, 2014; 62(7): 530‒5 [in Deutsch].
49.
Távora-Vieira D, Marino R. Re-training the deaf ear: Auditory training for adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness. Cochlear Implants Int, 2019; 20(5): 231‒6. https://doi.org/10.1080/146701....
50.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 1996; 312(7023): 71‒2. https://doi.org/https://doi.or... 51. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
