IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0320421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient preferences for Remote cochlear implant management: A discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Sucher
  • Richard Norman
  • Emma Chaffey
  • Rebecca Bennett
  • Melanie Ferguson

Abstract

Background: The opportunity to assess cochlear implant outcomes remotely provides the potential to streamline delivery of care for cochlear implant users. However, the conditions required for its implementation into clinic systems must be fully understood to ensure success and sustainability. The objectives of this study were to (i) use a discrete choice experiment quantify the preferences of cochlear implant users when considering use of Cochlear Remote CheckTM, a remote assessment service, and (ii) explore the perceptions, insights and attitudes of CI users that may influence utilisation of a remote service. Design: A discrete choice experiment was administrated to Australian adult cochlear implant users via an online survey. Participants chose between pairs of hypothetical clinical service options for three different clinical scenarios (acute care, troubleshooting and long-term review). Participants answered a series of questions focusing on how and when remote services should be discussed and offered within their hearing journey. Results: A total of 124 adult cochlear implant users completed the survey. Conditional logit analysis revealed the strongest participant preference was clinician continuity for assessment review, followed by low service costs. They preferred to receive assessment results within one week of completion, but not by videoconference/call in the acute care scenario. Only 12% of participants preferred in-clinic visits for all scenarios. Notably, 100% of participants felt that cochlear implant users should be made aware of remote service opportunities available to them. Conclusion: Study participants placed high importance on clinician continuity, but preferences for timing and delivery of results were less pronounced. This information can help to inform customisation of remote services by individual clinics. Costs and payment infrastructure for providing remote care require careful consideration. Whilst there is an appetite for use of Remote CheckTM alongside clinic visits, it is not suitable for, nor preferred by, all cochlear implant users.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Sucher & Richard Norman & Emma Chaffey & Rebecca Bennett & Melanie Ferguson, 2025. "Patient preferences for Remote cochlear implant management: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320421
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320421
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320421&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0320421?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320421. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.