1. Bilateral Listening Skills Profile UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. Devyanee Bele 11 April 2013

2. Aims Background Audit data Analysis Take home message

3. Background Developed by Ear Foundation Questions taken from Infant Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (Zimmerman-Philips et al) and paediatric version of Speech Spatial Qualities (Reeder & Firszt 2006) Assesses listening skills mostly in adverse listening conditions

4. Background cont

5. Audit data 0 pre CI 1 yr2 yr3 yr SIMnot applicable √ √ √ SEQ √ √ √ √

6. Analysis Themes extracted after factor analysis Speech Quality Localisation

8. Analysis Comparison of SIM and SEQ group across test intervals Comparison of unilateral and bilateral group against ‘time in sound’

9. n= 308 186 263 81 137 22 32

10. n= 293 165 244 75 127 19 32

11. n= 292 171 246 74 130 20 30

12. 12 n= 165 8 75 16 19 37

13. 13 n= 186 8 81 19 22 37

14. 14 n= 171 8 74 18 20 34

15. Take Home Message (1) Comparison of SIM vs SEQ across test intervals : no difference between SIM and SEQ group (2) Comparison of bilaterals vs unilaterals across ‘time in sound’ : bilateral group is significantly better than unilateral group

16. Parent Outcome Profile questionnaire UK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit. Devyanee Bele 11 April 2013

17. Acknowledgement Robin Gransier, Erasmus student University of Leuven

18. Aims Background Audit data Analysis Take home message

19. Background Developed by Archbold et al (2002) 74 questions and different themes (e.g. communication, process of implantation etc ) Issues important for parents rather than what professionals feel is important High test-retest reliability

20. Background cont

21. Audit data 0 pre CI 1 yr2 yr3 yr SIMnot applicable √limited data (<30) not applicable SEQ √ √ limited data (<30) not applicable Consortium decided to stop use of POP/POP2 in April 2011 POP2- allowed parents to compare outcome of 1CI to both CIs

22. Analysis Themes extracted after factor analysis education and social adjustment communication family relationships

24. Analysis cont Effect of 2 nd CI (i.e. improvement attributed to 2 nd CI) Relationship between this improvement and the age of implantation for 2 nd CI

25. My child received benefit from the 2 nd CI Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree N=115

26. Relationship of benefit & age at implantation of 2 nd CI Subjects : included seq children who had 1 st CI < 5yrs of age Divided into 3 groups based on age at 2 nd CI 1. children who had 2 nd CI < 5yrs 2. children had 2 nd CI between 5-10 yrs of age 3. children who had 2 nd CI between 10-15 yrs of age

27. My child received benefit from the 2 nd CI Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree N 33 68 27

28. My child received benefit from the 2 nd CI Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree N 33 68 27

29. My child received benefit from the 2 nd CI Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree N 33 68 27

30. Take Home Message For all themes of POP (communication, family relationships and education & social adjustment) (1)Children show significant improvement with two CIs compared to one CI (2)Children who receive 2 nd CI before 5 yrs of age do significantly better compared to children who received 2 nd CI at 5-10 yrs and 10-15 yrs of age