Sandra Marie Prentiss

Dr. Sandra Marie Prentiss

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
4 February 2014 in The Scientific World Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BVBart Vaerenberg
Bart Vaerenberg
CSCas Smits
Cas Smits
GCGeert De Ceulaer
Geert De Ceulaer
EZElie Zir
Elie Zir
SHSally Harman
Sally Harman
PGPaul J. Govaerts
Paul J. Govaerts
The programming of CIs is essential for good performance. However, no Good Clinical Practice guidelines exist. This paper reports on the results of an inventory of the current practice worldwide. A questionnaire was distributed to 47 CI centers. They follow 47600 recipients in 17 countries and 5 continents. The results were discussed during a debate. Sixty-two percent of the results were verified through individual interviews during the following months. Most centers (72%) participated in a cross-sectional study logging 5 consecutive fitting sessions in 5 different recipients. Data indicate that general practice starts with a single switch-on session, followed by three monthly sessions, three quarterly sessions, and then annual sessions, all containing one hour of programming and testing. The main focus lies on setting maximum and, to a lesser extent, minimum current levels per electrode. These levels are often determined on a few electrodes and then extrapolated. They are mainly based on subjective loudness perception by the CI user and, to a lesser extent, on pure tone and speech audiometry. Objective measures play a small role as indication of the global MAP profile. Other MAP parameters are rarely modified. Measurable targets are only defined for pure tone audiometry. Huge variation exists between centers on all aspects of the fitting practice.

30 October 2020 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JCJennifer Coto
Jennifer Coto
ARAlicia Restrepo
Alicia Restrepo
ICIvette Cejas
Ivette Cejas
SPSandra Marie Prentiss
Sandra Marie Prentiss
The purpose of the current study was to examine the impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) on allied health professionals work environment, access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and COVID-19 testing, and mental health. A 34-question survey was developed and distributed electronically to allied health professionals through listservs of professional organizations and social media groups. A total of 921 responses from allied health professionals in a variety of work settings were analyzed. The majority of allied health professionals had access to medical-grade PPE and agreed with their clinics decisions to stay open or closed. Private practices appeared to be the most negatively impacted with regards to employment in the form of pay reductions, furloughs, lay-offs, or the requirement of using paid time off. Importantly, 86% of all respondents, irrespective of employment status, reported feeling stressed with regards to changes in their work environment and transmission of the virus. However, levels of stress were dependent upon access to PPE and mental health resources. Specifically, those with access to mental health support reported lower stress levels than those without such access. These results highlight the need for continuous monitoring of mental health for allied health professionals in order to inform clinic and hospital policies for PPE and the development of brief interventions to mitigate adverse long-term mental health outcomes.

1 February 2020 in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SPSandra Marie Prentiss
Sandra Marie Prentiss
HSHillary Snapp
Hillary Snapp
TZTeresa Zwolan
Teresa Zwolan
The number of individuals with disabling hearing loss continues to increase globally.1,2 Management and treatment options for hearing loss are expanding. Despite these trends, access to hearing health care remains disproportionately low.1 Cochlear implants (CIs) are a widely accepted treatment option for patients with bilateral deafness. Advancements in surgical technique and electrode design have contributed to improved outcomes in patients with CIs, leading to a rapid push to expand indications set by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)3 to allow increased access to CI technology. Along these lines, FDA criteria for CIs recently were expanded to include individuals with lesser degrees of hearing loss.3 Evidence now exists to support the success of CIs in those with residual hearing who cannot benefit from traditional amplification.4-8 In accordance with the expanded FDA criteria, testing measures have evolved to more appropriately assess candidacy and avoid potential ceiling effects.9,10

12 July 2023 in The Laryngoscope
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DZDaniel M. Zeitler
Daniel M. Zeitler
SPSandra Marie Prentiss
Sandra Marie Prentiss
SSSarah A. Sydlowski
Sarah A. Sydlowski
CDCamille C. Dunn
Camille C. Dunn

1 January 2021 in Journal of Otology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KZKevin Y. Zhan
Kevin Y. Zhan
OAOliver F. Adunka
Oliver F. Adunka
Adrien EshraghiAdrien Eshraghi
Adrien Eshraghi
WRWilliam J. Riggs
William J. Riggs
SPSandra Marie Prentiss
Sandra Marie Prentiss
SHShuman He
Shuman He
Congenital hearing loss is remarkably heterogeneous, with over 130 deafness genes and thousands of variants, making for innumerable genotype/phenotype combinations. Understanding both the pathophysiology of hearing loss and molecular site of lesion along the auditory pathway permits for significantly individualized counseling. Electrophysiologic techniques such as electrocochleography (ECochG) and electrically-evoked compound action potentials (eCAP) are being studied to localize pathology and estimate residual cochlear vs. neural health. This review describes the expanding roles of genetic and electrophysiologic evaluation in the precision medicine of congenital hearing loss. The basics of genetic mutations in hearing loss and electrophysiologic testing (ECochG and eCAP) are reviewed, and how they complement each other in the diagnostics and prognostication of hearing outcomes. Used together, these measures improve the understanding of insults to the auditory system, allowing for individualized counseling for CI candidacy/outcomes or other habilitation strategies. Despite tremendous discovery in deafness genes, the effects of individual genes on neural function remain poorly understood. Bridging the understanding between molecular genotype and neural and functional phenotype is paramount to interpreting genetic results in clinical practice. The future hearing healthcare provider must consolidate an ever-increasing amount of genetic and phenotypic information in the precision medicine of hearing loss.

24 January 2025 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MHMeredith A Holcomb
Meredith A Holcomb
EWErin C Williams
Erin C Williams
SPSandra Marie Prentiss
Sandra Marie Prentiss
CSChrisanda Marie Sanchez
Chrisanda Marie Sanchez
MSMolly Smeal
Molly Smeal
JCJennifer Coto
Jennifer Coto
Objectives: The aims of this study were to compare pre- and post-operative word recognition scores (WRSs) for the adult Spanish-speaking population and to describe their cochlear implant (CI) performance trajectory. Methods: A retrospective chart review (n = 115) was completed for Spanish-speaking post-lingually deafened adults who underwent a traditional CI evaluation and subsequent surgery between 2018 and 2023. Pre- and post-CI (3, 6, 12-month) Spanish Bisyllable WRSs and CI datalogging (hours per day) were collected for 66 subjects who met inclusion. Patients were, on average, 61.4 years of age (SD = 14.9) at the time of their first CI, and all were Hispanic and White (100%). Results: The outcomes of the 66 subjects who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Spanish Bisyllable WRSs improved at all post-CI test intervals, though the mean change between intervals showed a decreasing trend over time, with a plateau in WRSs occurring by 6 months post-CI. Time was a significant predictor of increased post-CI WRSs at 6 months (p = 0.004) and 12 months (p < 0.001). Sex, the implanted ear, electrode type, CI manufacturer, and datalogging hours did not significantly predict Bisyllable WRSs. Conclusions: This study used the largest cohort dataset to date to describe pre-and post-CI WRSs for Spanish-speaking adults. The post-CI performance trajectory is similar in Spanish-speaking CI recipients compared to English-speaking cohorts. This study is fundamental in providing evidence-based outcomes for Spanish-speaking CI recipients and will assist clinicians with pre-CI counseling based on realistic expectations.