Semin Hear 2016; 37(03): 272-290
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1584414
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Role of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in Models of Infant Cochlear Implant Management

Colleen Psarros
1   Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre (SCIC), Gladesville, NSW, Australia
2   The Hearing CRC, Victoria, Australia
Sarah Love
1   Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre (SCIC), Gladesville, NSW, Australia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 July 2016 (online)


Newborn hearing screening has led to the early diagnosis of hearing loss in neonates and early device fitting is common, based primarily on electrophysiologic and radiologic information, with some supplementary behavioral measures. Such early fitting of hearing devices, in particular cochlear implants (CIs), has been beneficial to the majority of children implanted under the age of 12 months who meet the cochlear implant candidacy criteria. Comorbidities are common in children with hearing loss, although they may not be evident in neonates and may not emerge until later in infants. Evidence suggests that the child's outcomes are strongly influenced by a range of environmental factors including emotional and social support from the immediate and extended family. Consequently, such factors are important in service planning and service delivery for babies and children receiving CIs. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability (ICF) can provide a framework to facilitate the holistic management of pediatric cochlear implant recipients. The ICF also can be used to map the progress of recipients over time to highlight emerging issues that require intervention. This article will discuss our preliminary use of the ICF to establish clinical practice; develop advocacy skills among clients and their families; identify eligibility for services such as support in educational settings; enable access to modes of service delivery such as telepractice; provide a conceptual framework for policy and program development for pediatric cochlear implant recipients (i.e., in both disability and health services); and, most importantly, establish a clear pathway for the longitudinal management of the cochlear implant in a child's future. It is anticipated that this model will be applied to other populations receiving cochlear implants through our program.

  • References

  • 1 Dettman SJ, Pinder D, Briggs RJ, Dowell RC, Leigh JR. Communication development in children who receive the cochlear implant younger than 12 months: risks versus benefits. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (2, Suppl): 11S-18S
  • 2 Tait M, De Raeve L, Nikolopoulos TP. Deaf children with cochlear implants before the age of 1 year: comparison of preverbal communication with normally hearing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 71 (10) 1605-1611
  • 3 Ching TYC, Day J, Dillon H , et al. Impact of the presence of auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) on outcomes of children at three years of age. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (52) (Suppl. 02) S55-S64
  • 4 Edwards LC. Children with cochlear implants and complex needs: a review of outcome research and psychological practice. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2007; 12 (3) 258-268
  • 5 Winter ME, Nicholson Phillips B. Clinical management of cochlear implants in children: an overview. In: Eisenburg L, ed. Clinical Management of Children with Cochlear Implants. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Incorporated; 2009
  • 6 McKendrick E, Westcott S, Psarros C, Love S, Anderson M. SCIC Service Delivery Quality Standards. (in house publication). Sydney, Australia: SCIC; 2012
  • 7 Loeffler C, Aschendorff A, Burger T, Kroeger S, Laszig R, Arndt S. Quality of life measurements after cochlear implantation. The Open Otorhinolarnygology Journal 2010; 4: 47-54
  • 8 Danermark B, Cieza A, Gangé JP , et al. International classification of functioning, disability, and health core sets for hearing loss: a discussion paper and invitation. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (4) 256-262
  • 9 Ellingsen KM, Simeonsson RJ. ICF-CY Development Code sets (0-2yrs; 3-5yrs; 6-12yrs). 2011 . Available at: . Accessed on June 21, 2016
  • 10 Birman CS, Elliott EJ, Gibson WPR. Pediatric cochlear implants: additional disabilities prevalence, risk factors, and effect on language outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (8) 1347-1352
  • 11 Beltrame MA, Birman CS, Cervera Escario J , et al. Common cavity and custom-made electrodes: speech perception and audiological performance of children with common cavity implanted with a custom-made MED-EL electrode. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 77 (8) 1237-1243
  • 12 Health Centre for Genetics Education. Genetics Fact Sheets Fact Sheet 63, Deafness and Hearing loss. April 2016. Available at: . Accessed on June 21, 2016
  • 13 Varga R, Kelley PM, Keats BJ , et al. Non-syndromic recessive auditory neuropathy is the result of mutations in the otoferlin (OTOF) gene. J Med Genet 2003; 40 (1) 45-50
  • 14 Inscoe JR, Bones C. Additional difficulties associated with aetiologies of deafness: outcomes from a parent questionnaire of 540 children using cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2016; 17 (1) 21-30
  • 15 Winston AK, Stoner RB. ABR: An illustration of auditory dysfunction through clinical cases, presented in partnership with Rush University. AudiologyOnline. November 2013. Available at: . Accessed on June 21, 2016
  • 16 Pau H, Gibson WPR, Sanli H. Trans-tympanic electric auditory brainstem response (TT-EABR): the importance of the positioning of the stimulating electrode. Cochlear Implants Int 2006; 7 (4) 183-187
  • 17 O'Leary SJ, Mitchell TE, Gibson WP, Sanli H. Abnormal positive potentials in round window electrocochleography. Am J Otol 2000; 21 (6) 813-818
  • 18 King A, Carter L, Van Dun B, Zhang V, Pearce W, Ching T. Australian Hearing aided cortical evoked potential protocols. 2014. Available at: . Accessed on June 21, 2016
  • 19 Agung K, Purdy S, Kitamura C. The Ling sound test revisited. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology 2005; 27 (1) 33-41
  • 20 Rosenzweig E. Ling six sound check. 2015. Available at: . Accessed on March 2015
  • 21 Ching T, Hill M. Parent's Evaluation of Aural/Oral performance of Children (PEACH). Australian Hearing 2005; . Available at: . Accessed on June 21, 2016
  • 22 Ching TY, Hill M. The Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (3) 220-235
  • 23 Cantle-Moore R. The Infant Monitor of Vocal Production (IMP). North Rocks, Australia: North Rocks Press; 2014
  • 24 Cantle-Moore R. The infant monitor of vocal production (IMP): simple beginnings. Deafness Educ Int 2014; 16 (4) 218-236
  • 25 Rossetti L. The Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale. Nerang, QLD, Australia: ProEd Australia; 2006
  • 26 Moeller MP. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics 2000; 106 (3) E43
  • 27 Landy S. Pathways to Competence: Encouraging Healthy Social and Emotional Development in Young Children, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes; 2006
  • 28 Sarant J, Garrard P. Parenting stress in parents of children with cochlear implants: relationships among parent stress, child language, and unilateral versus bilateral implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2014; 19 (1) 85-106
  • 29 Abidin RR. Parenting Stress Index (PSI), 3rd ed. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1995
  • 30 Holt RF, Beer J, Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB, Lalonde K. Contribution of family environment to pediatric cochlear implant users' speech and language outcomes: some preliminary findings. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (3) 848-864
  • 31 Robbins AM. Clinical red flags for slow progress in children with cochlear implants. Loud and Clear 2005; 1: xx
  • 32 Cruz I, Vicaria I, Wang NY, Niparko J, Quittner AL ; CDaCI Investigative Team. Language and behavioral outcomes in children with developmental disabilities using cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (5) 751-760
  • 33 Ching TYC, Day J, Seeto M, Dillon H, Marnane V, Street L. Predicting 3-year outcomes of early-identified children with hearing impairment. B-ENT 2013; (Suppl. 21) 99-106
  • 34 Kemperman MH, Hoefsloot LH, Cremers CWRJ. Hearing loss and connexin 26. J R Soc Med 2002; 95 (4) 171-177
  • 35 Birman CS, Brew JA, Gibson WPR, Elliott EJ. CHARGE syndrome and Cochlear implantation: difficulties and outcomes in the paediatric population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79 (4) 487-492
  • 36 Psarros C, Van Wanrooy E. Remote programming of cochlear implants. In: Houston T, Rushbrooke E, eds. Telepractice in Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2015: 91-122
  • 37 Psarros C, McMahon C. Evaluating the benefits of a telepractice model. In: Houston T, Rushbrooke E, eds. Telepractice in Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2015: 47-90
  • 38 Morettin M, Cardoso MR, Delamura AM, Zabeu JS, Amantini RCB, Bevilacqua MC. Use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for monitoring patients using cochlear implants. Codas 2013; 25 (3) 216-223
  • 39 Duncan J. Telepractice aural habilitation for school aged children. Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation Its Instrumentation 2008; 15 (1) 1-15