Quality of life (QoL) has become an increasingly relevant outcome for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). However, it is not clear how QoL has been investigated in this population, especially during the first years of life. We reviewed research on QoL of children who are DHH aged 0-7 years and their families to describe the state of current research....
✦ The floor
Discussion
Signed responses from readers of the wire.
No actionable change based on this review alone, but audiologists and hearing care teams should be aware that current quality-of-life measurement for pediatric hearing loss is inconsistent — underscoring the need to routinely use validated, family-centred outcome tools in clinical encounters.
Standardising how quality of life is assessed in deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their families is essential for building an evidence base that can guide intervention decisions and policy.
- 01Scoping review maps quality-of-life research across deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their families.
- 02Published in The Laryngoscope; methodology varies widely across included studies.
- 03Significant gaps exist in family-level quality-of-life measurement.
- 04No single validated tool dominates the literature, limiting cross-study comparisons.
- 05Findings highlight a need for methodological consensus and more family-inclusive outcome frameworks.
Quality-of-life research in deaf and hard-of-hearing children shows significant methodological variation, limiting comparability.
studysupportedGaps exist in how family quality of life is investigated alongside child outcomes in this population.
studysupported- PMID
- 42855432
- DOI
- 10.1002/lary.70977.
- Journal
- The Laryngoscope
- Publication type
- review
- Evidence level
- 2a
- Population
- Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their families
- Intervention
- Quality-of-life measurement approaches across the literature
Primary outcomes
Mapping of quality-of-life instruments and methodologies used in pediatric hearing loss research; Identification of gaps and methodological variation in the literature