MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331744484 · doi:10.3766/jaaa.15064

Pediatric Audiology in North America: Current Clinical Practice and How It Relates to the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline

2016· article· en· W2331744484 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila Moodie, Eileen Rall, Leisha R. Eiten, George A. Lindley, Dave Gordey, Lisa S. Davidson, Marlene Bagatto, Susan Scollie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyGuidelineMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is broad consensus that screening and diagnosis of permanent hearing loss in children must be embedded within a comprehensive, evidence-based, family-centered intervention program. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for pediatric hearing assessment and hearing aid verification aim to reduce variability in practice and increase the use of effective evidence-based diagnostic and treatment options so that optimal outcomes may be achieved. To be of value, guidelines must be translated and implemented into practice and ongoing monitoring of their use in practice should occur. PURPOSE: This paper provides the results of two studies that aim to examine current pediatric audiology and amplification practice in North America. RESEARCH DESIGN: A concurrent embedded mixed methods design was used. STUDY SAMPLE: An electronic survey was distributed to North American audiologists who delivered pediatric audiology services with 350 audiologists participating in study 1 and 63 audiologists participating in study 2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A quantitative approach was the predominant method of data collection. Respondents were prompted to provide additional qualitative text and detail regarding their quantitative response choice. This qualitative text was used during the analysis phase and combined with quantitative results to assist understanding of respondents' knowledge, skills, and barriers/facilitators to implement best practice in pediatric amplification. RESULTS: Approximately 70% of audiologists reported using best-practice protocols for pediatric hearing aid fitting. Despite widespread knowledge and increased use of CPGs over the last 18 yrs, results of these studies show that variation in practice patterns continue to exist. Several examples of implementation challenges are discussed with recommendations provided. CONCLUSIONS: In order for audiologists working with children who are deaf or hard of hearing and their families to achieve the principles of family-centered early intervention, practice guidelines must continue to be developed, disseminated, and translated as they have a positive impact on the services provided. Researchers and clinical audiologists who deliver services must continue to collaborate to understand the "how" and "why" of implementing guidelines into practice and to identify the barriers/facilitators encountered in trying to do so.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of AudiologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207