Michael H Freeman, Ankita Patro, Nathan R Lindquist, Katelyn A Berg, Jourdan T Holder, Matthew R O'Malley, Kareem O Tawfik, Taha A Jan, Elizabeth L Perkins, Aaron C Moberly, David S Haynes, Marc L Bennett
{"title":"患者对人工耳蜗制造商选择的偏好。","authors":"Michael H Freeman, Ankita Patro, Nathan R Lindquist, Katelyn A Berg, Jourdan T Holder, Matthew R O'Malley, Kareem O Tawfik, Taha A Jan, Elizabeth L Perkins, Aaron C Moberly, David S Haynes, Marc L Bennett","doi":"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the factors that drive a patient's selection of cochlear implant (CI) manufacturer.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective survey study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary referral center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>One hundred twenty-eight adult patients undergoing primary CI.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Survey administered in the preoperative area.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Sources of information regarding CI manufacturer offerings, factors that were most important in deciding on a manufacturer, and manufacturer ultimately selected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred twenty-eight patients were included (average age, 63.7 years; 97% White). The most cited source of information that patients used to choose a device was his/her audiologist (80.5% of patients). When asked his/her number 1 reason for choosing their CI manufacturer, the most commonly cited reason was technology (e.g., battery life, device pairing), regardless of manufacturer. When asked about specific technology offerings, hearing aid pairing was rated as the most important. The numbers 2 and 3 reasons for choosing a manufacturer were cosmetics/structure of the wearable portion of the device and audiologist recommendation of that manufacturer, respectively. The relative weight given to each of the top 3 reasons differed significantly across the three manufacturers ( p = 0.017).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Audiologists are by far the leading source of information used by patients choosing a CI manufacturer. Patients prioritize technology most when choosing an implant manufacturer, but audiologist recommendation and the cosmetics and structure of the wearable device are also important. CI manufacturers should be mindful of patient priorities when designing and marketing their devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":19732,"journal":{"name":"Otology & Neurotology","volume":" ","pages":"54-59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Preferences in Cochlear Implant Manufacturer Selection.\",\"authors\":\"Michael H Freeman, Ankita Patro, Nathan R Lindquist, Katelyn A Berg, Jourdan T Holder, Matthew R O'Malley, Kareem O Tawfik, Taha A Jan, Elizabeth L Perkins, Aaron C Moberly, David S Haynes, Marc L Bennett\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MAO.0000000000004375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the factors that drive a patient's selection of cochlear implant (CI) manufacturer.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective survey study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary referral center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>One hundred twenty-eight adult patients undergoing primary CI.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Survey administered in the preoperative area.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Sources of information regarding CI manufacturer offerings, factors that were most important in deciding on a manufacturer, and manufacturer ultimately selected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred twenty-eight patients were included (average age, 63.7 years; 97% White). The most cited source of information that patients used to choose a device was his/her audiologist (80.5% of patients). When asked his/her number 1 reason for choosing their CI manufacturer, the most commonly cited reason was technology (e.g., battery life, device pairing), regardless of manufacturer. When asked about specific technology offerings, hearing aid pairing was rated as the most important. The numbers 2 and 3 reasons for choosing a manufacturer were cosmetics/structure of the wearable portion of the device and audiologist recommendation of that manufacturer, respectively. The relative weight given to each of the top 3 reasons differed significantly across the three manufacturers ( p = 0.017).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Audiologists are by far the leading source of information used by patients choosing a CI manufacturer. Patients prioritize technology most when choosing an implant manufacturer, but audiologist recommendation and the cosmetics and structure of the wearable device are also important. CI manufacturers should be mindful of patient priorities when designing and marketing their devices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"54-59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Otology & Neurotology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004375\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Otology & Neurotology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000004375","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient Preferences in Cochlear Implant Manufacturer Selection.
Objective: To assess the factors that drive a patient's selection of cochlear implant (CI) manufacturer.
Study design: Prospective survey study.
Setting: Tertiary referral center.
Patients: One hundred twenty-eight adult patients undergoing primary CI.
Interventions: Survey administered in the preoperative area.
Main outcome measures: Sources of information regarding CI manufacturer offerings, factors that were most important in deciding on a manufacturer, and manufacturer ultimately selected.
Results: One hundred twenty-eight patients were included (average age, 63.7 years; 97% White). The most cited source of information that patients used to choose a device was his/her audiologist (80.5% of patients). When asked his/her number 1 reason for choosing their CI manufacturer, the most commonly cited reason was technology (e.g., battery life, device pairing), regardless of manufacturer. When asked about specific technology offerings, hearing aid pairing was rated as the most important. The numbers 2 and 3 reasons for choosing a manufacturer were cosmetics/structure of the wearable portion of the device and audiologist recommendation of that manufacturer, respectively. The relative weight given to each of the top 3 reasons differed significantly across the three manufacturers ( p = 0.017).
Conclusions: Audiologists are by far the leading source of information used by patients choosing a CI manufacturer. Patients prioritize technology most when choosing an implant manufacturer, but audiologist recommendation and the cosmetics and structure of the wearable device are also important. CI manufacturers should be mindful of patient priorities when designing and marketing their devices.
期刊介绍:
Otology & Neurotology publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic science aspects of otology, neurotology, and cranial base surgery. As the foremost journal in its field, it has become the favored place for publishing the best of new science relating to the human ear and its diseases. The broadly international character of its contributing authors, editorial board, and readership provides the Journal its decidedly global perspective.