Parents' Preferences for Services for Children with Hearing Loss: A Conjoint Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective: Early identification of permanent childhood hearing loss through universal newborn hearing screening is rapidly becoming a standard of care. However, it is well recognized that hearing screening must be embedded within a comprehensive system of rehabilitation and parent support services. This study was undertaken with parents of young children with permanent hearing loss to examine their preferences for characteristics associated with intervention services. A secondary goal was to explore whether preferences may differ according to patient subgroups. Design: Conjoint analysis, a preference-based economic technique, was used to investigate parents' strength of preferences. A cross-sectional survey that consisted of hypothetical clinic scenarios was developed based on information from qualitative interviews with parents. The questionnaire was administered to parents receiving intervention services in the province of Ontario, Canada, shortly after the implementation of a universal hearing screening program. The sample was recruited from three different clinical programs. Results: A total of 48 of 75 respondents completed the questionnaire, a response rate of 64%. The participants varied by screening status of the child (25 screened, 23 not screened), type of device (23 hearing aids, 25 cochlear implants), and region. All five characteristics of care that were selected for inclusion in the survey were found to be statistically significant attributes of services: coordinated services, access to parent support, access to information, frequency of services, and location of services. Parents showed a preference for clinic-based rather than home-based services. Preferences toward once a week therapy services rather than services two to three times weekly were also found. In particular, parents valued service models that consisted of well-coordinated care with access to support from other parents. Differences in respondents according to hearing screening status (screened or unscreened), type of hearing device (hearing aid or cochlear implant), or region (Ottawa or Toronto) did not seem to affect parents' preferences for attributes of care. Conclusions: Conjoint analysis is a useful technique for quantifying parents' preferences for care. The values expressed by parents provide insights into the aspects of a service model that should receive consideration in the development of programs for young children with hearing loss and their families. Population-based infant hearing screening has received worldwide attention as an opportunity to improve outcomes for children with hearing loss. However, there is limited information available on how to maximize the potential opportunities provided by early detection of hearing loss. Using conjoint analysis, a stated preference technique from the field of marketing, this study explored parent preferences for service delivery after the identification of hearing loss. The results of the questionnaire demonstrated that, above all other characteristics of service models, parents valued coordinated services that were available through one agency or at least managed through one agency. Overall, the survey indicated that the preferred model was coordinated, clinic-based services with a range of audiology, speech and psychosocial services, access to parent support, and information available through the health service program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".