Aural Rehabilitation for Older Adults with Hearing Loss: Impacts on Quality of Life—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few systematic reviews have been conducted regarding aural rehabilitation for adults with hearing loss, with none specifically targeting the older adult population. With prevalence rates of hearing loss being highest in older adults, examining the effects of aural rehabilitation on this population is warranted. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of aural rehabilitation on quality of life in an older adult population presenting with hearing loss. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies with adults presenting with hearing loss, ≥50 yr of age, with or without hearing aids, receiving interventions such as auditory training, speech-reading, communication strategies training, speech tracking, counseling, or a combination of approaches, and measuring outcomes related to quality of life, in an individual or group format, with or without significant others and with no limitations as to year of publication. STUDY SELECTION: Searches in six databases, as well as results from hand-searching, gray literature, and cross-referencing of articles, yielded 386 articles. Of the 145 assessed as full-text articles for eligibility, 8 studies met inclusion criteria. STUDY APPRAISAL: A component-based risk of bias assessment, as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: No effect sizes were found in group interventions measuring outcomes related to quality of life, such as mental and emotional functions, environmental factors, participation restrictions, and activity limitations. An intervention effect regarding participation was found for a self-administered home training program, but an effect size was unavailable. Small-to-medium effect sizes were found in one of two individual communication training programs, for which outcomes related to quality of life, such as emotional functions, activities, participation, and environmental factors were measured. The results of the component-based risk of bias assessment indicated that the quality of reporting was poor, thus compromising the internal validity of included primary studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the combined body of evidence in support of aural rehabilitation for older adults with hearing loss is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions. We identify a need for more rigorous research to guide clinical decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.371 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".