Examination of the Relationship Among Hearing Impairment, Linguistic Communication, Mood, and Social Engagement of Residents in Complex Continuing-Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Earlier evidence was not conclusive about whether hearing loss is associated with mood (i.e., depressive symptoms and anhedonia) and social engagement (i.e., reduced psychosocial involvement and reduced activity levels) in elderly residents living in complex continuing-care facilities. If hearing impairment results in poor mood and lower levels of social engagement, then remedying hearing impairment might result in a higher quality of life. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if functional hearing impairment in continuing-care residents is associated with mood and social engagement. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study included all residents in Ontario who were admitted to complex continuing-care facilities between April 2000 and March 2001. Through the Canadian Institute of Health Information, we gathered health information by using the Minimum Data Set 2.0 questionnaire. RESULTS: The results were consistent with our hypothesized direct effect of functional hearing impairment on mood. Path analyses showed that hearing impairment impairs linguistic communication and that impaired linguistic communication is related to lower levels of mood and social engagement. IMPLICATIONS: This study adds to the literature supporting an association between hearing impairment and mood. It suggests that remedying hearing impairment may lower levels of poor mood in residents of complex continuing-care facilities. This, in turn, may reduce the negative effects of hearing impairment on social engagement and increase the quality of life for residents of these facilities. This study also suggests that questionnaires used to assess hearing, such as the Minimum Data Set 2.0, are suitable for early identification of hearing problems and may be used to refer residents to audiological services.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".