Search

Severe-to-profound hearing loss (STPHL) can affect a person negatively in many ways. Audiological rehabilitation is important for these patients. Patients receiving cochlear implants make up less than 10% of this group but have been studied extensively. In 2005, a national registry for adult patients with STPHL was introduced in Sweden. Its purpose was to evaluate and improve rehabilitation for all patients with STPHL. Data from the Swedish registry for adult patients with STPHL were used to evaluate variables affecting the audiological rehabilitation. Previous published data from the registry were reviewed, and new data from the follow-up questionnaire were presented. More than 90% of patients rehabilitated with hearing aids experienced a good or very good benefit of audiological rehabilitation. Tinnitus and vertigo affected quality of life negatively and were reported by many patients with STPHL (41% and 31%) at follow-up. To maintain the high number of patients who find audiological rehabilitation beneficial, individualized treatment plans and timely re-evaluations are crucial. Tinnitus and vertigo need to be addressed repeatedly in the rehabilitation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify and report demographic data of patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss, assess participation in audiological rehabilitation and analyze the benefits of various rehabilitation methods. Materials and methods: Data on 4286 patients with severe-to-profound hearing impairments registered in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology over a period from 2006–2015 were studied. Demographic data, gender differences, audiological rehabilitation and benefits of the rehabilitation were analyzed. Results: Group rehabilitation and visits to a hearing rehabilitation educator provided the most benefits in audiological rehabilitation. Only 40.5% of the patients received extended audiological rehabilitation, of which 54.5% were women. A total of 9.5% of patients participated in group rehabilitation, with 59.5% being women. Women also visited technicians, welfare officers, hearing rehabilitation educators, psychologists and physicians and received communication rehabilitation in a group and fit with cochlea implants significantly more often than did men. Conclusions: The study emphasizes the importance of being given the opportunity to participate in group rehabilitation and meet a hearing rehabilitation educator to experience the benefits of hearing rehabilitation. There is a need to offer extended audiological rehabilitation, especially in terms of gender differences, to provide the same impact for women and men. Significantly more women than men with severe-to-profound hearing impairment receive audiological rehabilitation. Hearing impairment appears to have a significantly more negative impact on women's quality of life than men's. It is important to offer extended audiological rehabilitation to all patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss to obtain an equal hearing health care regardless of gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Sweden, an estimated prevalence of adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss is 0.2%, which corresponds to roughly 20,000. We know little about the use of cochlear implants (CIs) in this population and why not most of them are not offered CI. Objectives: To investigate the reasons for no rehabilitation with CI among this patient group. Materials and methods: Data were collected from 1076 patients in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology. A baseline questionnaire and the reason for no CI, was evaluated. Results: Only 14.5% of the patients started a CI investigation, and 8.5% were rehabilitated with CI. Significantly more women (56.5%) than men received CI. The most common reasons for not receiving CI, were hearing reason (30.5%), indicating satisfaction with technical equipment, and unknown reason (25%). The oldest patient group (81–100 years old) had the highest risk for unknown reasons. Patients receiving extended audiological rehabilitation (53.5%) had a significantly lower risk for unknown reasons. Conclusions: It is worrying that the oldest patient group (81–100 years old) seemed to have fewer chances to start a CI investigation. An extended audiological rehabilitation increased the chances that professionals would discuss CI. Significance: This study shows that surprisingly few patients are offered CI despite their severe-to-profound hearing loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusions: Patients with severe vision impairment in combination with severe-to-profound hearing loss seem to have a higher risk for effects on QoL, including: mobility, the ability to provide self-care and perform usual activities, and levels of anxiety and depression, compared with patients with only severe-to-profound hearing loss. Objectives: To study the quality-of-life (QoL) and audiological rehabilitation of the severely visionimpaired patient population among adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss in Sweden. Method: A study of data collected from 543 patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss combined with severe vision impairment among the total of 2319 persons registered in the Swedish Quality Register of Otorhinolaryngology. QoL was measured with the following instruments: EQ5D, PIRS, and HADS. Audiological rehabilitation was described and evaluated. Results: The patients with dual sensory loss were younger, were more likely to live alone, and had a lower level of education than the control group. The QoL of the study group was significantly negatively affected. In total, 89% of the study group had been rehabilitated with hearing aids, while 8% had received rehabilitation with cochlear implants. A total of 32% of the study group had received extended audiological rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]