Evaluating the Revised Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire in Cochlear Implant Users Cochlear Implant Outcome Assessment Based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).
Journal
Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology
ISSN: 1537-4505
Titre abrégé: Otol Neurotol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100961504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
31
5
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The 59-item Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) was developed based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core set for vocational rehabilitation to assess work related functioning. It was revised to include 17 questions, assigned to 14 ICF categories relevant to cochlear implant (CI) users. This cross-sectional multicenter study aimed to evaluate CI users' responses on the WORQ questions to describe and generate ICF qualifiers for the revised WORQ in CI users, forming part of a broader framework of CI outcome measures linked to the ICF. One hundred seventy-seven adults over the age of 18 years with a minimum of one year's device experience were included in the analysis. The WORQ was completed by the participants at a routine visit to the clinic, via email, or via post. Most of the CI users perceived no problem on the WORQ questions (53.7%-91%), finished secondary school (54.2%) or obtained a college or university degree (32.8%) and are either employed (41.2%) or retired (34.5%). CI users that are currently working mostly have a full-time position (34.5%). Subjects reported no problem (91%) with sensation of falling, while handling communication devices and techniques (10.9%) and tinnitus (9.6%) showed the highest number of subjects reporting a complete problem. Overall, most of the CI users experienced no impairment, restriction or limitation on the WORQ questions and their assigned ICF categories. Their education level resembles the education level of the general population and they seem to integrate or reintegrate well in professional life postoperatively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35283464
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003524
pii: 00129492-202206000-00013
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e571-e577Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
Références
WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
Danermark B, Granberg S, Kramer SE, Selb M, Moller C. The creation of a comprehensive and a brief core set for hearing loss using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Am J Audiol 2013; 22:323–328.
Selb M, Escorpizo R, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G, Ustun B, Cieza A. A guide on how to develop an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2015; 51:105–117.
Granberg S, Pronk M, Swanepoel DW, et al. The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: Functioning and disability from the patient perspective. Int J Audiol 2014; 53:777–786.
Granberg S, Swanepoel DW, Englund U, Möller C, Danermark B. The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: International expert survey on functioning and disability of adults with hearing loss using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). IntJAudiol 2014; 53:497–506.
Granberg S, Moller K, Skagerstrand À, Möller C, Danermark B. The ICF Core Sets for hearing loss: Researcher perspective, Part II: Linking outcome measures to the International Classification of Functioning. Disab Health (ICF) 2014; 53:77–87.
Granberg S, Dahlstrom J, Moller C, Kahari K, Danermark B. The ICF Core Sets for hearing loss—Researcher perspective. Part I: Systematic review of outcome measures identified in audiological research. Int J Audiol 2014; 53:65–76.
Van Leeuwen ML, Merkus TP, Pronk EM, et al. Overlap and nonoverlap between the icf core sets for hearing loss and otology and audiology intake documentation. Ear Hear 2017; 38:103–116.
WHO. WHO: 1 in 4 People Projected to Have HearingProblems by 2050. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.
Kramer SE. Hearing impairment, work, and vocational enablement. IntJAudiol 2008; 47:S124–S130.
Emmett SD, Francis HW. The socioeconomic impact of hearing loss in US adults. Otol Neurotol 2015; 36:545–550.
Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BEK, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM. Gerontologist 2003; 43:661–668.
McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62:3554–3563.
Lorens A, Mertens G, Kurz A. [Pre-print] Audiological rehabilitation after cochlear implantation: A new model developed based on the international classification of functioning. Disability and Health (ICF): BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making; 2020.
Finger M, Escorpizo R, Bostan C, Bie R. Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ): Development and preliminary psychometric evidence of an ICF-based questionnaire for vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil 2014; 24:498–510.
Vermeulen K, Woestyn M, Oostra K, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ-VL). J Occup Rehabil 2019; 29:514–525.
Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Tennant A. Measuring work-related functioning using the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ). Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16:2795.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), Mean years of schooling. Retrieved December 21, 2020 from http://data.uis.unesco.org/ .
Huber M, Wolfgang H, Klaus A. Education and training of young people who grew up with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 72:1393–1403.
Tanamati LF, Bevilacqua MC, Costa OA. Cochlear implant in postlingual children: Functional results 10 years after the surgery. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 78:103–110.
Kos MI, Degive C, Boex C, Guyot JP. Professional occupation after cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 2007; 121:215–218.
Kamil RJ, Betz J, Powers BB, et al. Association of hearing impairment with incident frailty and falls in older adults. J Aging Health 2016; 28:644–660.
Sun DQ, Ward BK, Semenov YR. Bilateral vestibular deficiency: quality of life and economic implications. (Report). JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 140:527.
Agrawal Y, Pineault KG, Semenov YR. Health-related quality of life and economic burden of vestibular loss in older adults. Laryngosc Investig Otolaryngol 2018; 3:8–15.
Scarinci N, Worrall L, Hickson L. The effect of hearing impairment in older people on the spouse. Int J Audiol 2008; 47:141–151.
Arning K, Ziefle M. Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Comput Hum Behav 2007; 23:2904–2927.
Zhou J, Rau P-LP, Salvendy G. Age-related difference in the use of mobile phones. Universal Access Inform Soc 2014; 13:4001–4413.
Anderson I, Baumgartner W-D, Boö heim K, Nahler A, Arnolder C, D’Haese P. Telephone use: What benefit do cochlear implant users receive? Int J Audiol 2006; 45:446–453.
Castro A, Lassaletta L, Bastarrica M, Perez-Mora R, Josefa De Sarria M, Gavilán J. Benefits from a mobile telephone adapter in Combi40+ cochlear implant users. Acta Oto-laryngol 2008; 128:661–665.
Baguley DM. New insights into tinnitus in cochlear implant recipients. Cochlear Implants Int 2010; 11:31–36.
Kloostra FJJ, Verbist J, Hofman R, Free RH, Arnold R, van Dijk P. A prospective study of the effect of cochlear implantation on Tinnitus. Audiol Neurootol 2018; 23:356–363.
Kloostra FJ, Arnold R, Hofman R, Van Dijk P. Changes in tinnitus after cochlear implantation and its relation with psychological functioning. Audiol Neurootol 2015; 20:81–89.
Contrera KJ, Betz J, Li L, et al. Quality oflife after intervention with a cochlear implant or hearing aid. Laryngoscope 2016; 126:2110–2115.
Aimoni C, Ciorba A, Hatzopoulos S, et al. Cochlear implants in subjects over age 65: Quality of life and audiological outcomes. Med Sci Monitor Int Med J Exp Clin Res 2016; 22:3035.
Andries E, Gilles A, Topsakal V, et al. Systematic review of quality of life assessments after cochlear implantation in older adults. Audiol Neurotol 2021; 26:61–75.
Angelo TCSd, Moret ALM, Costa OAD, Nascimento LT, Alvarenga KdF. Quality of life in adult cochlear implant users. CoDAS 2016; 28:106–112.
Capretta NR, Moberly AC. Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users? Laryngoscope 2016; 126:699–706.
McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL, et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope 2018; 128:982–990.
Olze H, Knopke S, Grabel S, Szczepek AJ. Rapid positive influence of cochlear implantation on the quality of life in adults 70 years and older. Audiol Neurootol 2016; 21: (Suppl 1): 43–47.
Ramos Á, Guerra-Jiménez G, Rodriguez C, Borkoski S, Falcón JC, Perez D. Cochlear implants in adults over 60: A study of communicative benefits and the impact on quality of life. Cochlear Implants Int 2013; 14:241–245.
Ramos-Macías A, Falcón Gonzalez JC, Borkoski-Barreiro SA, Ramos de Miguel Á, Batista DS, Pérez Plasencia D. Health-related quality of life in adult cochlear implant users: A descriptive observational study. Audiol Neurotol 2016; 21:36–42.