Parents’ Needs Following Identification of Childhood Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Appropriate support for families of children diagnosed with hearing impairment may have a direct impact on the success of early hearing detection and intervention programs in reducing the negative effects of permanent hearing loss. We conducted a qualitative study to explore parents' needs after learning of their child's hearing loss to better understand the important components of service delivery from families' perspectives. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 families (21 parents) of preschool children in 4 centers in Ontario, Canada. Parents of children identified by neonatal screening as well as those identified through traditional referral routes participated. We asked parents to share their perceptions of the strengths and gaps in the care system. RESULTS: Although the majority of parents were satisfied with the range and quality of audiology and therapy services available, they identified gaps in the areas of service coordination, availability of information, and the integration of social service and parent support into the system. Access to audiology services appears to have been facilitated for children who were systematically screened. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide insights into the services most valued by families. These findings highlight the importance of eliciting parents' perspectives in designing optimal care models for children and families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".