ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, digitalization in healthcare grew rapidly. Auditory training after cochlear implantation usually takes place face-to-face but social distancing interferes with this therapeutic approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In follow-up treatment, 42 adult cochlear implant (CI) users aged 53.8 (±15.6) years received video therapy 1â¯x/week for 5 weeks on a certified platform. After each therapy session, the technical process and therapeutic content were assessed. At the end of the study, usability and the relationship between therapist and patient were evaluated by patients and therapists using the System Usability Scale (SUS), a final questionnaire and by the Skala Therapeutische Allianz - Revised (STA-R). Furthermore, a cost-benefit analysis was done. RESULTS: Usability for both users was high (87.97 versus 93.0). Despite the lack of personal contact, therapeutic alliance was highly appreciated by patients and therapists (87.8% versus 84.8%). The main advantages for the patients were reductions in time and costs. In contrast, the rehabilitation center faced higher costs initially due to the longer time therapists needed to prepare the lessons. Technical problems had to be solved in >â¯75% of the first sessions but did not bother training thereafter. In total, 47.6% of the patients believe that teletherapy can completely fulfill their therapeutic needs. CONCLUSION: Video therapy has been judged as a useful tool by all users and the majority wants to continue. However, it remains questionable whether the therapist-patient relationship can be sufficiently maintained over a longer period and whether online therapy is as effective as face-to-face therapy.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cochlear Implantation , Cochlear Implants , Adult , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Technologies allowing home-based rehabilitation may be a key means of saving financial resources while also facilitating people's access to treatment. After cochlear implantation, auditory training is necessary for the brain to adapt to new auditory signals transmitted by the cochlear implant (CI). To date, auditory training is conducted in a face-to-face setting at a specialized center. However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on health care, the need for new therapeutic settings has intensified. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to assess the feasibility of a novel teletherapeutic auditory rehabilitation platform in adult CI recipients and compare the clinical outcomes and economic benefits of this platform with those derived from conventional face-to-face rehabilitation settings in a clinic. METHODS: In total, 20 experienced adult CI users with a mean age of 59.4 (SD 16.3) years participated in the study. They completed 3 weeks of standard (face-to-face) therapy, followed by 3 weeks of computer-based auditory training (CBAT) at home. Participants were assessed at three intervals: before face-to-face therapy, after face-to-face therapy, and after CBAT. The primary outcomes were speech understanding in quiet and noisy conditions. The secondary outcomes were the usability of the CBAT system, the participants' subjective rating of their own listening abilities, and the time required for completing face-to-face and CBAT sessions for CI users and therapists. RESULTS: Greater benefits were observed after CBAT than after standard therapy in nearly all speech outcome measures. Significant improvements were found in sentence comprehension in noise (P=.004), speech tracking (P=.004) and phoneme differentiation (vowels: P=.001; consonants: P=.02) after CBAT. Only speech tracking improved significantly after conventional therapy (P=.007). The program's usability was judged to be high: only 2 of 20 participants could not imagine using the program without support. The different features of the training platform were rated as high. Cost analysis showed a cost difference in favor of CBAT: therapists spent 120 minutes per week face-to-face and 30 minutes per week on computer-based sessions. For CI users, attending standard therapy required an average of approximately 78 (SD 58.6) minutes of travel time per appointment. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed teletherapeutic approach for hearing rehabilitation enables good clinical outcomes while saving time for CI users and clinicians. The promising speech understanding results might be due to the high satisfaction of users with the CBAT program. Teletherapy might offer a cost-effective solution to address the lack of human resources in health care as well as the global challenge of current or future pandemics.
