Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T12:45:23.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The mental health of paediatric cochlear implant recipients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2023

Si-Jie Ma
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China
Si-Xuan Li
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China
Huan Tan
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China
Chi Chen
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China
Pan-Pan Bian
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China
Bai-Cheng Xu*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China
Yu-Fen Guo*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China
*
Corresponding authors: Yu-Fen Guo; Email: guoyflz@163.com Bai-Cheng Xu; Email: xbsuc@126.com
Corresponding authors: Yu-Fen Guo; Email: guoyflz@163.com Bai-Cheng Xu; Email: xbsuc@126.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the mental health of paediatric cochlear implant users and analyse the relationship between six dimensions (movements, cognitive ability, emotion and will, sociality, living habits and language) and hearing and speech rehabilitation.

Methods

Eighty-two cochlear implant users were assessed using the Mental Health Survey Questionnaire. Age at implantation, time of implant use and listening modes were investigated. Categories of Auditory Performance and the Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale were used to score hearing and speech abilities.

Results

More recipients scored lower in cognitive ability and language. Age at implantation was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for movements, cognitive ability, emotion and will, and language. The time of implant usage and listening mode indicated statistical significance (p < 0.05) in cognitive ability, sociality and language.

Conclusion

Timely attention should be paid to the mental health of paediatric cochlear implant users, and corresponding psychological interventions should be implemented to make personalised rehabilitation plans.

Information

Type
Main Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Figure 0

Table 1. Scores for all dimensions of the paediatric cochlear implant users’ mental health questionnaire at different ages (scores, $\bar{x} \pm s$) and qualified rates (cases, n (%))

Figure 1

Figure 1. Comparison of scores for various dimensions of the mental health of children in terms of age at implantation: (a) movements, (b) cognitive ability, (c) emotion and will, (d) sociality, (e) living habits and (f) language. Centre lines indicate median values, boxes represent interquartile ranges and error bars show overall ranges. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001; ns = not significant

Figure 2

Figure 2. Comparison of scores for various dimensions of the mental health of children in terms of time of implant usage: (a) movements, (b) cognitive ability, (c) emotion and will, (d) sociality, (e) living habits and (f) language. Centre lines indicate median values, boxes represent interquartile ranges and error bars show overall ranges. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ****p < 0.0001; ns = not significant

Figure 3

Figure 3. Comparison of scores for various dimensions of the mental health of children using unilateral, bilateral cochlear implant and binaural mode: (a) movements, (b) cognitive ability, (c) emotion and will, (d) sociality, (e) living habits and (f) language. Centre lines indicate median values, boxes represent interquartile ranges and error bars show overall ranges. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ****p < 0.0001; ns = not significant; CI = cochlear implant; HA = hearing aid

Figure 4

Figure 4. Comparison of Categories of Auditory Performance scores between participants reaching the standard criteria or not: (a) movements, (b) cognitive ability, (c) emotion and will, (d) sociality, (e) living habits and (f) language. Centre lines indicate median values, boxes represent interquartile ranges and error bars show overall ranges. **p < 0.01; ns = not significant

Figure 5

Figure 5. Comparison of Speech Intelligibility Rating Scale scores between participants reaching the standard criteria or not: (a) movements, (b) cognitive ability, (c) emotion and will, (d) sociality, (e) living habits and (f) language. Centre lines indicate median values, boxes represent interquartile ranges and error bars show overall ranges. *p < 0.05; ns = not significant