Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul-Aug;84(4):494-499.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.06.005. Epub 2017 Jul 5.

Quality of life and cochlear implant: results in adults with postlingual hearing loss

Aline Faria de Sousa  1 , Maria Inês Vieira Couto  2 , Ana Claudia Martinho-Carvalho  2
Affiliations

Quality of life and cochlear implant: results in adults with postlingual hearing loss

Aline Faria de Sousa et al. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Jul-Aug.

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Introduction: Considering the variability of results found in the clinical population using a cochlear implant, researchers in the area have been interested in the inclusion of quality of life measures to subjectively assess the benefits of the implantation.

Objective: To assess the quality of life of adult users of cochlear implant.

Methods: A cross-sectional and clinical study in a group of 26 adults of both genders, with mean duration of cochlear implant use of 6.6 years. The Nijmegen Cochlear Implantation Questionnaire and the generic World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire were sent electronically.

Results: The best assessed domain in the quality of life assessment for the cochlear implantation questionnaire was the social domain, whereas for the quality of life questionnaire it was the psychological domain. The variables, gender, time of cochlear implant use and auditory modality did not influence the results of both questionnaires. Only the variable level of education was correlated with the environment domain of the quality of life questionnaire. The variable telephone speech comprehension was associated with a better perception of quality of life for all the domains of the specific questionnaire and for the self-assessment of quality of life in general.

Conclusion: From the users' perspective, both questionnaires showed that cochlear implant brought benefits to different aspects related to quality of life.

Introdução: Diante da variabilidade de resultados clínicos encontrada na população usuária de implante coclear, pesquisadores da área têm se interessado pela inclusão de medidas de qualidade de vida para avaliar de maneira subjetiva os benefícios do implante coclear.

Objetivo: Avaliar a qualidade de vida de adultos usuários de implante coclear.

Método: Estudo transversal e clínico em um grupo de 26 adultos, de ambos os gêneros, com tempo de uso médio do implante coclear de 6,6 anos. Foram utilizados o questionário específico Nijmegen de Implantes Cocleares e o questionário genérico World Health Organization Quality of Life, enviados via mídia eletrônica.

Resultados: O domínio melhor pontuado na avaliação da qualidade de vida para o questionário Nijmegen foi o social e para o questionário World Health Organization Quality of Life foi o psicológico. As variáveis, gênero, tempo de uso do implante coclear e modalidade auditiva não influenciaram os resultados de ambos os questionários. Apenas a variável nível de instrução correlacionou-se com o domínio meio ambiente do questionário sobre qualidade de vida. A variável compreensão de fala ao telefone associou-se a uma melhor percepção da qualidade de vida para todos os domínios do questionário específico e para a autoavaliação da qualidade de vida em geral.

Conclusão: Na perspectiva dos usuários, o implante coclear trouxe benefícios para os diversos aspectos relacionados à qualidade de vida em ambos os questionários.

Keywords: Adult; Adulto; Cochlear implantation; Deafness; Hearing loss; Implante coclear; Perda auditiva; Qualidade de vida; Quality of life; Surdez.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Cruz L.N., Polanczyk C.A., Camey S.A., Hoffmann J.F., Fleck M.P. Quality of life in Brazil: normative values for the WHOQOL-bref in a southern general population sample. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1123–1129. - PubMed
    1. Pereira É.F., Teixeira C.S., Santos A. dos. Quality of life: approaches, concepts and assessment. Rev Bras Educ Fis Esporte. 2012;26:241–250.
    1. Hinderink J.B., Krabbe P.F., Van Den Broek P. Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;123:756–765. - PubMed
    1. Santos NP, Couto MI, Martinho-Carvalho AC. Nijmegen Cochlear Implantation Questionnaire (NCIQ): translation, cultural adaptation and aplication in adults with cochlear implants. CoDAS [in press]. - PubMed
    1. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med. 1998;28:551–558. - PubMed