Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices and Other Technologies on Deaf and Hard of Hearing People

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2021 Jul 24

PMID 34299710

Citations 6

Authors

Estibaliz Jimenez-Arberas

Emiliano Diez

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Deaf and hard of hearing people use a variety of assistive devices and technologies as a strategy to mitigate, counter or compensate for life difficulties resulting from hearing loss. Although outcome measures are commonly used with hearing aids, few studies have explored the perceived psychosocial impact of other assistive devices and technologies or the factors leading to their abandonment or lack of use. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to assess the psychosocial impact of different assistive devices on deaf and hard of hearing people using the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale. The sample was made up of 291 individuals, 176 women and 115 men, with an average age of 56.12 years (standard deviation (SD) = 25.11), who were all users of different assistive devices. Overall, the results of the study showed that the use of assistive devices had a positive psychosocial impact, although this impact varied slightly depending on the specific type of device. Moreover, a relationship was identified between the psychosocial impact and the probability of future abandonment of a hearing aid or a cochlear implant. The results point to the importance of considering the psychosocial impact derived from the use of a device as a relevant variable in the adoption process of assistive technologies for deaf and hard of hearing people.

Citing Articles

Psychological Health of Deaf Pre-Teens and Teenagers with Cochlear Implants and Maternal Psychological Features: A Pilot Study.

Caragli V, Camia M, Scorza M, Genovese E, Persico A, Benincasa P Healthcare (Basel). 2025; 13(5).

PMID: 40077060 PMC: 11899424. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13050498.

The psychosocial impact of eye-gaze assistive technology on everyday life of children and adults.

Andreassen M, Borgestig M, Hemmingsson H Ann Med. 2024; 56(1):2318397.

PMID: 38442288 PMC: 10916903. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2318397.

Available Assistive Technology Outcome Measures: Systematic Review.

Borgnis F, Desideri L, Converti R, Salatino C JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023; 10:e51124.

PMID: 37782310 PMC: 10687703. DOI: 10.2196/51124.

Promoting active aging through assistive product design innovation: a preference-based integrated design framework.

Zhang B, Ma M, Wang Z Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1203830.

PMID: 37404280 PMC: 10315631. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1203830.

Factors Influencing Utilization of Assistive Devices by Tibetan Seniors on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Based on Research Strategy of Triangulation.

Luo J, Liu Q, Gama Z, Gesang D, Zhu Y, Yang L Patient Prefer Adherence. 2023; 17:401-411.

PMID: 36815130 PMC: 9939664. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S400346.

References

Faria de Sousa A, Couto M, Martinho-Carvalho A . Quality of life and cochlear implant: results in adults with postlingual hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; 84(4):494-499. PMC: 9449166. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.06.005. View

Mantokoudis G, Koller R, Guignard J, Caversaccio M, Kompis M, Senn P . Influence of Telecommunication Modality, Internet Transmission Quality, and Accessories on Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(4):e135. PMC: 5422655. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6954. View

Summerfield A, Marshall D . Non-use of cochlear implants by post-lingually deafened adults. Cochlear Implants Int. 2008; 1(1):18-38. DOI: 10.1179/cim.2000.1.1.18. View

Southall K, Gagne J, Leroux T . Factors that influence the use of assistance technologies by older adults who have a hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45(4):252-9. DOI: 10.1080/14992020500258586. View

Kobosko J, Pankowska A, Skarzynski H . [Coping strategies in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users in comparison to the hearing population]. Otolaryngol Pol. 2012; 66(2):132-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0030-6657(12)70761-8. View

Eklund K, Dahlin-Ivanoff S . Low vision, ADL and hearing assistive device use among older persons with visual impairments. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009; 2(6):326-34. DOI: 10.1080/17483100701714717. View

Jutai J, Ladak N, Schuller R, Naumann S, WRIGHT V . Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: an institutional case study. Assist Technol. 1995; 8(2):110-20. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.1996.10132281. View

Scherer M . Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil. 1996; 18(9):439-48. DOI: 10.3109/09638289609165907. View

Park E, Shipp D, Chen J, Nedzelski J, Lin V . Postlingually deaf adults of all ages derive equal benefits from unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012; 22(10):637-43. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.22.10.2. View

10.

Helvik A, Jacobsen G, Hallberg L . Psychological well-being of adults with acquired hearing impairment. Disabil Rehabil. 2006; 28(9):535-45. DOI: 10.1080/09638280500215891. View

11.

Tomita M, Mann W, Welch T . Use of assistive devices to address hearing impairment by older persons with disabilities. Int J Rehabil Res. 2002; 24(4):279-89. DOI: 10.1097/00004356-200112000-00004. View

12.

Knudsen L, Oberg M, Nielsen C, Naylor G, Kramer S . Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: a review of the literature. Trends Amplif. 2010; 14(3):127-54. PMC: 4111466. DOI: 10.1177/1084713810385712. View

13.

Aazh H, Moore B . Audiological Rehabilitation for Facilitating Hearing Aid Use: A Review. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017; 28(3):248-260. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16035. View

14.

Harris F, Sprigle S . Outcomes measurement of a wheelchair intervention. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009; 3(4):171-80. DOI: 10.1080/17483100701869784. View

15.

Werngren-Elgstrom M, Iwarsson S, Elmstahl S, Dehlin O . ADL dependence and perceived health among elderly deaf sign-language users: a comparison with a matched group of elderly hearing people. Scand J Occup Ther. 2006; 12(2):81-8. DOI: 10.1080/11038120510031743. View

16.

Maiorana-Basas M, Pagliaro C . Technology use among adults who are deaf and hard of hearing: a national survey. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2014; 19(3):400-10. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enu005. View

17.

Mantokoudis G, Dahler C, Dubach P, Kompis M, Caversaccio M, Senn P . Internet video telephony allows speech reading by deaf individuals and improves speech perception by cochlear implant users. PLoS One. 2013; 8(1):e54770. PMC: 3554620. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054770. View

18.

Guerra-Zuniga M, Cardemil-Morales F, Albertz-Arevalo N, Rahal-Espejo M . [Explanations for the non-use of hearing aids in a group of older adults. A qualitative study]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2013; 65(1):8-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.otorri.2013.09.004. View

19.

Tangcharoensathien V, Witthayapipopsakul W, Viriyathorn S, Patcharanarumol W . Improving access to assistive technologies: challenges and solutions in low- and middle-income countries. WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2018; 7(2):84-89. DOI: 10.4103/2224-3151.239419. View

20.

Day H, Jutai J, Woolrich W, Strong G . The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2001; 23(9):400-4. DOI: 10.1080/09638280010008906. View