Comparing occupational well-being between cochlear implant users and individuals with hearing loss or typical hearing

International Journal of Audiology, pp. 1–13

Abstract

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: With this cross-sectional study, we aimed to assess whether cochlear implant (CI) users have different occupational well-being than individuals with hearing loss (HL) without CI (HL group) and those with typical hearing (TH). We used validated questionnaires to assess all outcomes. STUDY SAMPLE: We included 98 CI users (mean age 51 y), 52 HL group participants (mean age 49 y) and 54 TH group participants (mean age 46 y). RESULTS: Capabilities, physical and psychosocial working conditions were similar overall across the three groups. However, compared to the HL group, the CI group had significantly better outcomes on a range of variables, reporting fewer psychosomatic symptoms, better health, higher acceptance of their HL, better verbal coping strategies, fewer interruptions during work, and lower perceived noise level. There were no variables indicating that CI users performed worse than their peers from the HL group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CI users show occupational well-being and capabilities comparable to those of other groups. However, CI users appear to be more advanced in their progress towards acceptance of their HL, use of verbal coping strategies, are better adjusted at work, and report better health than individuals with HL without a CI.

Authors 7

1. V. E. E. Feenstra corresponding

   Amsterdam Public Health · Amsterdam University Medical Centers · Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute

2. Adriana A. Zekveld

   Amsterdam Public Health · Amsterdam University Medical Centers · Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute

3. M.W. Kaandorp

   Amsterdam Public Health · Amsterdam University Medical Centers · Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute

4. Hendrik Christiaan Stronks Aachen Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University

5. Jeroen Johannes Briaire Aachen Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery

   Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center

6. J.H.M. Frijns Aachen Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center · Delft University of Technology

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Bioelectronics, Delft University of Technology

   Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center

   Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University

7. Sophia E. Kramer

   Amsterdam Public Health · Amsterdam University Medical Centers · Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Section Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute