Qualitative interviews on the beliefs and feelings of adults towards their ownership, but non-use of hearing aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Up to a quarter of the adults who own hearing aids never use them. To provide these 'non-users' with the best help, hearing care professionals need to have an in-depth understanding of the non-users' beliefs and feelings with regard to the non-use. This qualitative study explored these beliefs and feelings in order to increase our understanding of hearing aid non-users. DESIGN: Individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews were completed. STUDY SAMPLE: Eleven hearing aid owners (aged 54-80 years) who reported that they never or hardly ever used their hearing aids. RESULTS: The participants expressed a variety of feelings towards their non-use, including indifference, self-annoyance, frustration, powerlessness, shame, and guilt. Their feelings were related to beliefs about: (1) the severity of their hearing handicap with and without hearing aids, (2) whom or what was responsible for the non-use, and (3) the attitudes of significant others towards the non-use. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing-aid non-users differ in their beliefs and feelings towards the non-use. A patient-centred approach is needed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".