Citations

Objective: To compare patient and provider experiences and opinions regarding auditory training in adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Study Design: Narrative review and comparison of patient and provider surveys. Setting: Tertiary referral center and email distribution list of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance. Participants: CI recipients and care providers. Interventions/Methods: We examined and performed a narrative review of two independently developed and published surveys looking at auditory training practices and habits from the perspectives of CI recipients and CI providers, respectively. Main Outcome Measure: Comparison of overlapping topics between patient and provider reports on their experiences with respect to auditory training for CI recipients. Results: Topics for comparison included how auditory training was performed, the timing or logistics of training, and barriers to utilization of training. Findings revealed that auditory training is considered a valuable resource by both CI patients and providers, with similar reports from the 2 groups on the use, timing, and perceived benefits of auditory training. However, we also noted discrepancies between patients and providers with regard to the use of specific types of training and concerns regarding reimbursement for auditory training services. Conclusion: Both CI patients and providers consider auditory training a useful and affordable resource to maximize CI outcomes. However, utilization remains inconsistent. Further study and effort are needed to address key knowledge gaps and better standardize this aspect of peri-CI care.

ABSTRACT Objective To identify and compare how patient perceptions contribute to Type 1 Delays, defined as delays in deciding to seek care, among individuals with head and neck cancer (HNC) in high‐income countries (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods We conducted a scoping review and systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception through November 20, 2023. Eligible studies included patients with HNC in HICs or LMICs who reported patient perceptions contributing to Type 1 Delays. Data extraction was performed in duplicate, and barriers were categorized thematically. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the frequency of reported barriers between HIC and LMIC studies. Results Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria, of which 64.7% ( n = 11) were conducted in HICs and 35.3% ( n = 6) in LMICs, representing 9 countries and 1410 participants. The most frequently cited perceptions contributing to delay were symptom unawareness, misinterpretation, and minimization. Additional barriers included fear of diagnosis, stigma, alternative medicine use, financial challenges, and geographic barriers. Transport/geographic barriers showed a trend toward being more common in LMIC studies ( p = 0.05). Descriptive patterns suggested LMIC patients more often reported structural and sociocultural barriers, whereas HIC patients more commonly cited psychosocial or perceptual barriers. Conclusion Type 1 Delays in HNC are common across both HICs and LMICs, with overlapping and region‐specific contributors. Tailored interventions, such as patient education, stigma reduction, and improved access to diagnostic services, may promote earlier detection and improve global HNC outcomes. Level of Evidence 3.