MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904824759 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000695

Correlates of Hearing Aid Use in UK Adults

2019· article· en· W2904824759 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsHearing aidMedicineAudiologyPsychological interventionCross-sectional studyOdds ratioTinnitusHearing lossConfidence intervalPresbycusisPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Hearing impairment is ranked fifth globally for years lived with disability, yet hearing aid use is low among individuals with a hearing impairment. Identifying correlates of hearing aid use would be helpful in developing interventions to promote use. To date, however, no studies have investigated a wide range of variables, this has limited intervention development. The aim of the present study was to identify correlates of hearing aid use in adults in the United Kingdom with a hearing impairment. To address limitations in previous studies, we used a cross-sectional analysis to model a wide range of potential correlates simultaneously to provide better evidence to aid intervention development. DESIGN: The research was conducted using the UK Biobank Resource. A cross-sectional analysis of hearing aid use was conducted on 18,730 participants aged 40 to 69 years old with poor hearing, based on performance on the Digit Triplet test. RESULTS: Nine percent of adults with poor hearing in the cross-sectional sample reported using a hearing aid. The strongest correlate of hearing aid use was self-reported hearing difficulties (odds ratio [OR] = 110.69 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 65.12 to 188.16]). Individuals who were older were more likely to use a hearing aid: for each additional year of age, individuals were 5% more likely to use a hearing aid (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.06). People with tinnitus (OR = 1.43 [95% CI = 1.26 to 1.63]) and people with a chronic illness (OR = 1.97 [95% CI = 1.71 to 2.28]) were more likely to use a hearing aid. Those who reported an ethnic minority background (OR = 0.53 [95% CI = 0.39 to 0.72]) and those who lived alone (OR = 0.80 [95% CI = 0.68 to 0.94]) were less likely to use a hearing aid. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to promote hearing aid use need to focus on addressing reasons for the perception of hearing difficulties and how to promote hearing aid use. Interventions to promote hearing aid use may need to target demographic groups that are particularly unlikely to use hearing aids, including younger adults, those who live alone and those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.233 · 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