Social Predictors of Hearing Aid Purchase: Do Stigma, Social Network Composition, Social Support, and Loneliness Matter?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which four different social factors (stigma, social network composition, social support, and loneliness) predict the purchase of hearing aids in a sample of older adults with impaired hearing who had not previously tried hearing aids and visited a hearing care clinic for the first time. DESIGN: Data collection took place across 130 different hearing care clinics (Connect Hearing) in Canada. A total of 4630 participants were recruited for the study from notices in the waiting rooms of the clinics or by advertising in local newspapers. The final sample consisted of 753 adults (mean age = 69.2 years; SD = 9.0; 57.4% male) who were all recommended to try hearing aids. Clinical records were tracked for a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 15 months after the appointment to determine if they obtained hearing aids. Participants completed a 56-item questionnaire before their appointment and then experienced standard care at the clinic (i.e., hearing evaluation, hearing rehabilitation if desired, etc.). Key factors assessed by the questionnaire included stigma related to age, stigma related to hearing aids, social network composition, perceived levels of social support, loneliness, self-reported hearing disability, and demographic information. RESULTS: Data were analyzed using two methods, a penalized logistic regression and a classification tree analysis, to identify statistical predictors and meaningful clinical cutoff scores, respectively. Both models found that hearing aid adoption was best predicted by being older and having greater self-reported hearing disability. Hearing aid uptake was also predicted by social factors, but these predictors were less robust than age and self-reported hearing disability. Participants were more likely to adopt hearing aids if they reported less hearing aid stigma and had a social network that included at least 1 person with a suspected hearing loss. Loneliness and social support did not predict hearing aid adoption. Some model-specific variables also emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Using a prospective research design, the study provides novel quantitative evidence of the role of different social factors regarding the uptake of hearing aids. The research findings may be used to better identify individuals more and less likely to obtain hearing aids, inform hearing rehabilitation, and motivate the use of interventions designed to lessen the impact of stigma on hearing rehabilitation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».