Exploring the Factors Influencing Discontinued Hearing Aid Use in Patients With Unilateral Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have shown that unilateral cochlear implant users who have residual hearing in the contralateral ear can benefit from combining a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear with their cochlear implant. The purpose of this study was to better understand the factors influencing decision making by adults. Adults who had discontinued hearing aid use shortly after cochlear implantation were selected from one Canadian cochlear implant program. An examination of hearing aid use revealed that of 96 patients, who used hearing aids preimplant, 49 had discontinued hearing aid use. Patient perspectives on the decision and experience of combining a hearing aid and a cochlear implant were collected through 12 individual semistructured interviews. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively to identify key themes. Questionnaires, based on the interview findings, were developed and sent to the 49 adults to further explore the factors affecting hearing aid decisions. Interview and questionnaire findings from 28 adults indicated that three factors primarily influenced patients' decision to discontinue hearing aid use: their perceptions of the experience with hearing aids prior to implantation, their views of superiority of a unilateral cochlear implant in comparison with hearing aids, and their perceptions of interference with sound quality when a cochlear implant and hearing aid were combined. This study provides information about patient perceptions, experiences, and understanding of the potential difficulties of a bimodal fitting that may assist clinicians in pre- and postimplant counseling.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".