Effects of families’ socioeconomic and education level on auditory skills of cochlear implant users: an Iranian population study

  • Mohammadsaleh Moosapour ORCID Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Mohammad Ajalloueyan Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Farzaneh Zamiri Abdollahi ORCID Mail Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Maryam Delphi ORCID Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
  • Ali Berri Dizaji Clinic of Audiology, Baqiyatallah Cochlear Implant Center, Tehran, Iran
Keywords:
Cochlear implant; pediatric; auditory behaviors; socioeconomic status

Abstract

Background and Aim: Hearing loss can have disabling effects on all aspects of children’s life and demographic factors of families can have significant effects on children’s auditory development. The main aim of the study was determining the effects of socioeconomic and education level on auditory behaviors of hearing-impaired children.
Methods: The study was cross sectional descriptive-analytic study and was conducted on 207 parents of children under age of four years with native Persian speaking parents with literacy skill. Their hearing impairment was identified before the first month of age. Early occurrence of hearing loss was considered to exclude any effects of early exposure to normal auditory stimuli on the outcome measurements. The children had at least 3-month experience with the cochlear implant (CI) after best fitting and adaptation to their device at the time of the study. Samples were selected by convenience sampling method from available subjects. For determining socioeconomic level, Ghodratnama socioeconomic status (SES) questionnaire was used. Infants and Toddlers Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS) was selected for the auditory behaviors study.
Results: Socioeconomic and educational level of the family showed no significant effects on auditory behaviors. The age of receiving auditory assistive device had weak but statistically significant effect on the outcome.
Conclusion: It seems that socioeconomic status and educational level of the family did not contribute to the auditory behaviors of children with cochlear implant. The generalizations of these results need further studies.

References

1. Wong YA, Mukari SZS, Harithasan D, Mazlan R. Knowledge and attitude on childhood hearing loss among mothers and mothers-to-be in urban and rural areas in Malaysia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;124:79-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.05.040
2. Darouie A, Joulaie M, Zamiri Abdollahi F, Robbins A, Zarepour S, Ahmadi T. Developing the Persian version of Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal. 2019;17(1):53-60. doi: 10.32598/irj.17.1.53
3. Iwasaki S, Nishio S, Moteki H, Takumi Y, Fukushima K, Kasai N, et al. Language development in Japanese children who receive cochlear implant and/or hearing aid. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(3):433-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.12.027
4. Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM, Gregory S. Young deaf children with hearing aids or cochlear implants: early assessment package for monitoring progress. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69(2):175-86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.08.016
5. Wang NM, Huang TS, Wu CM, Kirk KI. Pediatric cochlear implantation in Taiwan: long-term communication outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71(11):1775-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.08.004
6. Belzner KA, Seal BC. Children with cochlear implants: a review of demographics and communication outcomes. Am Ann Deaf. 2009;154(3):311-33. doi: 10.1353/aad.0.0102
7. Huang Z, Gordish‐Dressman H, Preciado D, Reilly BK. Pediatric cochlear implantation: Variation in income, race, payer, and charges across five states. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):954-8. doi: 10.1002/lary.26686
8. Jeddi Z, Jafari Z, Zarandy MM. Effects of parents’ level of education and economic status on the age at cochlear implantation in children. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;24(1):7-14. doi: 10.22038/IJORL.2012.212
9. Jafari Z, Malayeri S, Ashayeri H. The ages of suspicion, diagnosis, amplification, and intervention in deaf children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71(1):35-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.08.014
10. Joulaie M, Zamiri Abdollahi F, Darouie A, Ahmadi T, Desjardin J. Maternal perception of self-efficacy and involvement in young children with prelingual hearing loss. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;71(1):48-53. doi: 10.1007/s12070-018-1520-3
11. Eyalati N, Jafari Z, Ashayeri H, Salehi M, Kamali M. Effects of parental education level and economic status on the needs of families of hearing-impaired children in the aural rehabilitation program. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;25(1):41-8. doi: 10.22038/IJORL.2012.66
12. Ozcebe E, Sevinc S, Belgin E. The ages of suspicion, identification, amplification and intervention in children with hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69(8):1081-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.03.002
13. Prendergast SG, Lartz MN, Fiedler BC. Ages of diagnosis, amplification, and early intervention of infants and young children with hearing loss: findings from parent interviews. Ame Ann Deaf. 2002;147(1):24-30. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.0198
14. Sharma S, Bhatia K, Singh S, Lahiri AK, Aggarwal A. Impact of socioeconomic factors on paediatric cochlear implant outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;102:90-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.09.010
15. Cavicchiolo S, Mozzanica F, Guerzoni L, Murri A, Dall’Ora I, Ambrogi F, et al. Early prelingual auditory development in Italian infants and toddlers analysed through the Italian version of the Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(2):615-22. doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4847-6
16. Weichbold V, Anderson I, D'haese P. Validation of three adaptations of the meaningful auditory integration scale (MAIS) to German, English and Polish. Int J Audiol. 2004;43(3):156-61. doi: 10.1080/14992020400050021
17. Zheng Y, Soli SD, Wang K, Meng J, Meng Z, Xu K, et al. A normative study of early prelingual auditory development. Audiol Neurootol. 2009;14(4):214-22. doi: 10.1159/000189264
18. Shiri SG, Mirzazadeh ZS, Abdi K, Alipanahiyan N, Alamdarlu NN. Prioritizing the sport interests and comparison of the demographic factors for household sport expenditures: Evidence from Iran. Journal of Economic & Management Perspectives. 2017;11(1):173-80.
19. Olusanya BO, Newton VE. Global burden of childhood hearing impairment and disease control priorities for developing countries. Lancet. 2007;369(9569):1314-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60602-3
20. Ajallouyan M, Radfar S, Nouhi S, Tavallaie SA, Amirsalari S, Yousefi J, et al. Consanguinity among parents of Iranian deaf children. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2016;18(11): e22038. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.22038
21. Elahi MM, Elahi F, Elahi A, Elahi SB. Paediatric hearing loss in rural Pakistan. J Otolaryngol. 1998;27(6):348-53.
22. Girotto G, Mezzavilla M, Abdulhadi K, Vuckovic D, Vozzi D, Alkowari MK, et al. Consanguinity and hereditary hearing loss in Qatar. Hum hered. 2014;77(1-4):175-82. doi: 10.1159/000360475
23. Saadallah AA, Rashed MS. Newborn screening: experiences in the Middle East and North Africa. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2007;30(4):482-9. doi: 10.1007/s10545-007-0660-5
24. Bener A, Eihakeem AA, Abdulhadi K. Is there any association between consanguinity and hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69(3):327-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.10.004
25. Zakzouk S. Consanguinity and hearing impairment in developing countries: a custom to be discouraged. J Laryngol Otol. 2002;116(10):811-6. doi: 10.1258/00222150260293628
26. Zakzouk S, El-Sayed Y, Bafaqeeh SA. Consanguinity and hereditary hearing impairment among Saudi population. Ann Saudi Med. 1993;13(5):447-50. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.1993.447
27. Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F, Van de Heyning P, Truy E, Sterkers O, et al. Pre-, per-and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PloS one. 2012;7(11):e48739. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048739
28. Lopez-Poveda EA, Johannesen PT, Perez-González P, Blanco JL, Kalluri S, Edwards B. Predictors of hearing-aid outcomes. Trends Hear. 2017;21:2331216517730526. doi: 10.1177/2331216517730526
29. Mitchell RM, Christianson E, Ramirez R, Onchiri FM, Horn DL, Pontis L, et al. Auditory comprehension outcomes in children who receive a cochlear implant before 12 months of age. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(3):776-81. doi: 10.1002/lary.28061
30. Tobey EA, Thal D, Niparko JK, Eisenberg LS, Quittner AL, Wang NY, et al. Influence of implantation age on school-age language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol. 2013;52(4):219-29. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.759666
31. Wu D, Woodson EW, Masur J, Bent J. Pediatric cochlear implantation: role of language, income, and ethnicity. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(5):721-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.02.030
32. Yucel E, Derim D, Celik D. The needs of hearing impaired children's parents who attend to auditory verbal therapy-counseling program. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72(7):1097-111. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.03.020
33. Chang DT, Ko AB, Murray GS, Arnold JE, Megerian CA. Lack of financial barriers to pediatric cochlear implantation: impact of socioeconomic status on access and outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136(7):648-57. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.90
34. Wu CD, Brown PM. Parents' and teachers' expectations of auditory-verbal therapy. Volta Rev. 2004;104(1):5-20.
Published
2020-04-22
How to Cite
1.
Moosapour M, Ajalloueyan M, Zamiri Abdollahi F, Delphi M, Berri Dizaji A. Effects of families’ socioeconomic and education level on auditory skills of cochlear implant users: an Iranian population study. Aud Vestib Res. 29(2):101-108.
Section
Research Article(s)