Corrected and Uncorrected Hearing Impairment in Older Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing impairment (HI) is a common chronic condition in later life, but one that can often be improved with the use of a hearing aid. However, a distinction is not often made between corrected and uncorrected HI in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of corrected and uncorrected HI, and assess whether there are differences in sociodemographic factors among older adults (age 50+) with corrected HI, uncorrected HI and no HI. METHOD: Secondary data came from two national data sources: the 1994 National Population Health Survey (n = 6,202) and the Canadian Community Health Survey 1.1 (n = 50,113). We use multinomial logistic regression to assess sociodemographic risk markers for both corrected and uncorrected HI. RESULTS: Both corrected and uncorrected HI was common in this age group: 6.5 and 4.0%, respectively, in the National Population Health Survey and 5.7 and 2.5% in the Canadian Community Health Survey. In both samples, the prevalence of corrected and uncorrected HI increased with age and was more common among men. Respondents with either corrected or uncorrected HI were less likely to be married and more likely to report other physical health problems compared to respondents with no HI. In the Canadian Community Health Survey, income was associated with lower odds of reporting uncorrected HI, while education was associated with reduced likelihood of reporting corrected HI. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that HI is prevalent in later life, and sociodemographic factors such as marital status, education, and income do not differ significantly between those with corrected and uncorrected HI compared with respondents with no HI. Further investigation into the factors associated with hearing aid use is necessary to better target older adults who might benefit from wearing a hearing aid.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".