A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Contralateral acoustic hearing aid use in adult unilateral cochlear implant recipients: Current provision, practice, and clinical experience in the UK. | LitMetric

Contralateral acoustic hearing aid use in adult unilateral cochlear implant recipients: Current provision, practice, and clinical experience in the UK.

Cochlear Implants Int

a NIHR Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit , 113 The Ropewalk, Nottingham NG1 5DU , UK.

Published: May 2016

Objectives: The study surveyed practising cochlear implant (CI) audiologists with the aim of: (1) characterizing UK clinical practice around the management and fitting of a contralateral hearing aid (HA) in adult unilateral CI users ('bimodal aiding'); (2) identifying factors that may limit the provision of bimodal aiding; and (3) ascertaining the views of audiologists on bimodal aiding.

Methods: An online survey was distributed to audiologists working at the 20 centres providing implantation services to adults in the UK.

Results: Responses were received from 19 of the 20 centres. The majority of centres reported evaluating HAs as part of the candidacy assessment for cochlear implantation. However, a majority also indicated that they do not take responsibility for the contralateral HA following implantation, despite identifying few practical limiting factors. Bimodal aiding was viewed as more beneficial than wearing the implant alone, with most respondents actively encouraging bimodal listening where possible. Respondents reported that fitting bimodal devices to take account of each other's settings was potentially more beneficial than independently fit devices, but such sympathetic fitting was not routine practice in any centre.

Discussion: The results highlight some potential inconsistencies in the provision of bimodal aiding across the UK as reported by practising audiologists. The views of audiologists about what is best practice appear to be at odds with the nature and structure of the services currently offered.

Conclusion: Stronger evidence that bimodal aiding can be beneficial for UK patients would be required in order for service providers to justify the routine provision of bimodal aiding and to inform guidelines to shape routine clinical practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2016.1162382DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bimodal aiding
20
provision bimodal
12
hearing aid
8
aid adult
8
adult unilateral
8
cochlear implant
8
clinical practice
8
bimodal
8
views audiologists
8
practice
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!