Jonathan D Neukam, Ansley J Kunnath, Ankita Patro, René H Gifford, David S Haynes, Aaron C Moberly, Terrin N Tamati
{"title":"成人接受人工耳蜗的障碍:范围审查。","authors":"Jonathan D Neukam, Ansley J Kunnath, Ankita Patro, René H Gifford, David S Haynes, Aaron C Moberly, Terrin N Tamati","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cochlear implants (CIs) provide access to sound and help mitigate the negative effects of hearing loss. As a field, we are successfully implanting more adults with greater amounts of residual hearing than ever before. Despite this, utilization remains low, which is thought to arise from barriers that are both intrinsic and extrinsic. A considerable body of literature has been published in the last 5 years on barriers to adult CI uptake, and understanding these barriers is critical to improving access and utilization. This scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature and provide a guide to understanding barriers to adult CI uptake.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inclusion criteria were limited to peer-reviewed articles involving adults, written in English, and accessible with a university library subscription. A cutoff of 20 years was used to limit the search. Barriers uncovered in this review were categorized into an ecological framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search revealed 2,315 items after duplicates were removed. One hundred thirty-one articles were reviewed under full-text, and 68 articles met the inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Race, ethnicity, and reimbursement are policy and structural barriers. Public awareness and education are societal barriers. Referral and geographical challenges are forms of organizational barriers. Living context and professional support are interpersonal barriers. At the individual level, sound quality, uncertainty of outcome, surgery, loss of residual hearing, and irreversibility are all barriers to CI uptake. By organizing barriers into an ecological framework, targeted interventions can be used to overcome such barriers.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":"45 10","pages":"e679-e686"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers to Cochlear Implant Uptake in Adults: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan D Neukam, Ansley J Kunnath, Ankita Patro, René H Gifford, David S Haynes, Aaron C Moberly, Terrin N Tamati\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004340\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cochlear implants (CIs) provide access to sound and help mitigate the negative effects of hearing loss. As a field, we are successfully implanting more adults with greater amounts of residual hearing than ever before. Despite this, utilization remains low, which is thought to arise from barriers that are both intrinsic and extrinsic. A considerable body of literature has been published in the last 5 years on barriers to adult CI uptake, and understanding these barriers is critical to improving access and utilization. This scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature and provide a guide to understanding barriers to adult CI uptake.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inclusion criteria were limited to peer-reviewed articles involving adults, written in English, and accessible with a university library subscription. A cutoff of 20 years was used to limit the search. Barriers uncovered in this review were categorized into an ecological framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search revealed 2,315 items after duplicates were removed. One hundred thirty-one articles were reviewed under full-text, and 68 articles met the inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Race, ethnicity, and reimbursement are policy and structural barriers. Public awareness and education are societal barriers. Referral and geographical challenges are forms of organizational barriers. Living context and professional support are interpersonal barriers. At the individual level, sound quality, uncertainty of outcome, surgery, loss of residual hearing, and irreversibility are all barriers to CI uptake. By organizing barriers into an ecological framework, targeted interventions can be used to overcome such barriers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"volume\":\"45 10\",\"pages\":\"e679-e686\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004340\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004340","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介人工耳蜗 (CI) 可以让人们获得声音,帮助减轻听力损失带来的负面影响。在这一领域,我们比以往任何时候都成功地为更多的成年人植入了残余听力。尽管如此,使用率仍然很低,这被认为是由于内在和外在的障碍造成的。在过去的 5 年中,发表了大量关于成人 CI 使用障碍的文献,了解这些障碍对于提高使用率和普及率至关重要。本范围综述旨在总结现有文献,为了解成人 CI 使用障碍提供指导:纳入标准仅限于涉及成人、以英语撰写、可在大学图书馆查阅的同行评审文章。搜索范围以 20 岁为界限。本综述中发现的障碍被归类到一个生态框架中:在去除重复内容后,初步搜索发现了 2,315 篇文章。对 131 篇文章进行了全文检索,有 68 篇文章符合纳入标准:讨论:种族、民族和报销是政策和结构性障碍。公众意识和教育是社会障碍。转诊和地理挑战是组织障碍。生活环境和专业支持是人际障碍。在个人层面上,音质、结果的不确定性、手术、残余听力的丧失以及不可逆转性都是 CI 应用的障碍。通过将障碍归纳到生态框架中,可以采取有针对性的干预措施来克服这些障碍。
Barriers to Cochlear Implant Uptake in Adults: A Scoping Review.
Introduction: Cochlear implants (CIs) provide access to sound and help mitigate the negative effects of hearing loss. As a field, we are successfully implanting more adults with greater amounts of residual hearing than ever before. Despite this, utilization remains low, which is thought to arise from barriers that are both intrinsic and extrinsic. A considerable body of literature has been published in the last 5 years on barriers to adult CI uptake, and understanding these barriers is critical to improving access and utilization. This scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature and provide a guide to understanding barriers to adult CI uptake.
Methods: Inclusion criteria were limited to peer-reviewed articles involving adults, written in English, and accessible with a university library subscription. A cutoff of 20 years was used to limit the search. Barriers uncovered in this review were categorized into an ecological framework.
Results: The initial search revealed 2,315 items after duplicates were removed. One hundred thirty-one articles were reviewed under full-text, and 68 articles met the inclusion criteria.
Discussion: Race, ethnicity, and reimbursement are policy and structural barriers. Public awareness and education are societal barriers. Referral and geographical challenges are forms of organizational barriers. Living context and professional support are interpersonal barriers. At the individual level, sound quality, uncertainty of outcome, surgery, loss of residual hearing, and irreversibility are all barriers to CI uptake. By organizing barriers into an ecological framework, targeted interventions can be used to overcome such barriers.
期刊介绍:
Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.