ARDC Research Link Australia

ORCID Profile
Orcid icon. 0000-0002-8092-6238

Current Organisations
University of Southampton , Birmingham City University , University of Leicester , University of Nottingham

Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.

Publications

Publication

Evolution of Type D Personality Traits After Cochlear Implantation in Severely Hearing Impaired Adults 55 Years and Older: An Exploratory Prospective, Longitudinal, Controlled, Multicenter Study

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Date: 09-2022

DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003622

Abstract: To study the evolution of type D personality traits in older adults after cochlear implantation compared with a control group of severely hearing impaired older adults who did not receive a cochlear implant (CI). The influence of COVID-19 on this evolution was also explored. Type D personality combines a high degree of negative affectivity (NA) and social inhibition (SI). In this prospective, longitudinal, controlled multicenter exploratory study, 76 older CI users and 21 severely hearing impaired controls without CI were included. The CI group and the control group did not differ significantly regarding age, formal education, residual hearing, Type D Scale-14 (DS14) total score, NA, and SI at baseline. Type D personality traits were assessed with the DS14 at baseline (T0) and 14 months later (T14). Type D personality traits differed significantly over time between the CI group and the control group ( p 0.001). In the CI group, the DS14 total score (mean delta T = −6.63 p 0.001), NA (mean delta T = −3.26 p 0.001), and SI (mean delta T = −3.37 p 0.001) improved significantly over time (delta T = T14–T0), whereas no significant difference was found in the control group. Significantly fewer subjects were categorized as type D personalities in the CI group (delta T = −12 p = 0.023) at T14, whereas no significant change was found in the control group (delta T = 3 p = 0.250). COVID-19 did not influence the evolution of type D personality traits significantly in the CI group. Cochlear implantation has a positive effect on type D personality traits in older adults with a severe-to-profound hearing impairment.

Publication

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders

Publisher: Routledge

Date: 08-10-2013

DOI: 10.4324/9781315889665

Publication

A Scoping Review of Studies Comparing Outcomes for Children With Severe Hearing Loss Using Hearing Aids to Children With Cochlear Implants

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Date: 03-08-2021

DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001104

Abstract: Clinical practice regarding children’s candidature for cochlear implantation varies internationally, albeit with a recent global trend toward implanting children with more residual hearing than in the past. The provision of either hearing aids or cochlear implants can influence a wide range of children’s outcomes. However, guidance on eligibility and suitability for implantation is often based on a small number of studies and a limited range of speech perception measures. No recent reviews have catalogued what is known about comparative outcomes for children with severe hearing-loss using hearing aids to children using cochlear implants. This article describes the findings of a scoping review that addressed the question “What research has been conducted comparing cochlear implant outcomes to outcomes in children using hearing aids with severe hearing-loss in the better-hearing ear?” The first objective was to catalogue the characteristics of studies pertinent to these children’s candidature for cochlear implantation, to inform families, clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers. The second objective was to identify gaps in the evidence base, to inform future research projects and identify opportunities for evidence synthesis. We included studies comparing separate groups of children using hearing aids to those using cochlear implants and also repeated measures studies comparing outcomes of children with severe hearing loss before and after cochlear implantation. We included any outcomes that might feasibly be influenced by the provision of hearing aids or cochlear implants. We searched the electronic databases Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL, for peer-reviewed journal articles with full-texts written in English, published from July 2007 to October 2019. The scoping methodology followed the approach recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute regarding study selection, data extraction, and data presentation. Twenty-one eligible studies were identified, conducted across 11 countries. The majority of children studied had either congenital or prelingual hearing loss, with typical cognitive function, experience of spoken language, and most implanted children used one implant. Speech and language development and speech perception were the most frequently assessed outcomes. However, some aspects of these outcomes were sparsely represented including voice, communication and pragmatic skills, and speech perception in complex background noise. Two studies compared literacy, two sound localization, one quality of life, and one psychosocial outcomes. None compared educational attainment, listening fatigue, balance, tinnitus, or music perception. This scoping review provides a summary of the literature regarding comparative outcomes of children with severe hearing-loss using acoustic hearing aids and children using cochlear implants. Notable gaps in knowledge that could be addressed in future research includes children’s quality of life, educational attainment, and complex listening and language outcomes, such as word and sentence understanding in background noise, spatial listening, communication and pragmatic skills. Clinician awareness of this sparse evidence base is important when making management decisions for children with more residual hearing than traditional implant candidates. This review also provides direction for researchers wishing to strengthen the evidence base upon which clinical decisions can be made.

Publication

Early Childhood Intervention

Publisher: Routledge

Date: 12-2016

DOI: 10.4324/9781315688442

Publication

Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in designs of clinical trials for interventions that seek to restore bilateral and binaural hearing in adults with unilateral severe to profou

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Date: 20-03-2021

DOI: 10.1186/S13063-021-05160-5

Abstract: This systematic review aimed to identify, compare and contrast outcome domains and outcome instruments reported in studies investigating interventions that seek to restore bilateral (two-sided) and/or binaural (both ears) hearing in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD). Findings can inform the development of evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials. Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis. Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains. This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains. The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.

Publication

Cognitive Improvement After Cochlear Implantation in Older Adults With Severe or Profound Hearing Impairment: A Prospective, Longitudinal, Controlled, Multicenter Study

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Date: 09-10-2020

DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000962

Abstract: To compare the cognitive evolution of older adults with severe or profound hearing impairment after cochlear implantation with that of a matched group of older adults with severe hearing impairment who do not receive a cochlear implant (CI). In this prospective, longitudinal, controlled, and multicenter study, 24 older CI users were included in the intervention group and 24 adults without a CI in the control group. The control group matched the intervention group in terms of gender, age, formal education, cognitive functioning, and residual hearing. Assessments were made at baseline and 14 months later. Primary outcome measurements included the change in the total score on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status for Hearing impaired in iduals score and on its subdomain score to assess cognitive evolution in both groups. Secondary outcome measurements included self-reported changes in sound quality (Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index), self-perceived hearing disability (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale), states of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and level of negative affectivity and social inhibition (Type D questionnaire). Improvements of the overall cognitive functioning ( p = 0.05) and the subdomain “Attention” ( p = 0.02) were observed after cochlear implantation in the intervention group their scores were compared to the corresponding scores in the control group. Significant positive effects of cochlear implantation on sound quality and self-perceived hearing outcomes were found in the intervention group. Notably, 20% fewer traits of Type D personalities were measured in the intervention group after cochlear implantation. In the control group, traits of Type D personalities increased by 13%. Intervention with a CI improved cognitive functioning (domain Attention in particular) in older adults with severe hearing impairment compared to that of the matched controls with hearing impairment without a CI. However, older CI users did not, in terms of cognition, bridge the performance gap with adults with normal hearing after 1 year of CI use. The fact that experienced, older CI users still present subnormal cognitive functioning may highlight the need for additional cognitive rehabilitation in the long term after implantation.