Factors that influence disclosure of hearing loss in the workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to identify factors that lead individuals to conceal or disclose their hearing loss in the workplace. Design: A qualitative research paradigm called qualitative description was selected to address this issue. Study sample: Twelve people who had an adult onset hearing loss, and were gainfully employed, participated in audio-recorded semi-structured interviews designed to probe issues related to disclosure of hearing loss. A photo elicitation interview technique was employed during the interviews. Content analyses were used to extract pertinent information from verbatim transcripts. Results: Five recurring themes emerged as important considerations in relation to this topic: (1) perceived importance of the situation; (2) perceived sense of control; (3) community affiliation; (4) burden of communication; and (5) coexisting issues related to hearing loss. Conclusions: The findings are discussed in relation to other concealable stigmatizing traits, stigma-theory, and social-cognitive theory. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed, with particular emphasis placed on worker self-efficacy.SumarioObjetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue identificar los factores que llevan a los individuos a ocultar o revelar su pérdida auditiva en el lugar de trabajo. Diseño: Se escogió un paradigma cualitativo de investigación llamado descripción cualitativa para enfrentar el asunto. Muestra del Estudio: Doce sujetos con una hipoacusia adquirida en la edad adulta con empleos bien remunerados participaron en una entrevista semi-estructurada grabado en audio, diseñada para evaluar asuntos relacionados con la revelación de su problema auditivo. Se empleó una técnica de entrevista por provocación fotográfica durante la misma entrevista. Se usó un análisis de contenidos para extraer la información pertinente de las transcripciones literales. Resultados: Cinco temas recurrentes emergieron como consideraciones importantes en relación con este tópico: 1. Percepción de la importancia de la situación; 2. Percepción del sentido de control; 3. Afiliación a la comunidad; 4. Carga en la comunicación; y 5. Asuntos coexistentes relacionados con la hipoacusia. Conclusiones: Los hallazgos se discuten en relación con otros rasgos estigmatizantes ocultables, con la teoría del estigma y con la teoría social-cognitiva. Las implicaciones clínicas de estos hallazgos se discuten, con un énfasis particular puesto en la auto-eficacia del trabajador.
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 | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".