Walk, Talk and Listen: a pilot randomised controlled trial targeting functional fitness and loneliness in older adults with hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age-related hearing loss (HL) is a prevalent disability associated with loneliness, isolation, declines in cognitive and physical function and premature mortality. Group audiological rehabilitation (GAR) and hearing technologies address communication and cognitive decline. However, the relationship between loneliness, physical function and GAR among older adults with HL has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: Explore the impact of a group exercise and socialisation/health education intervention and GAR on physical function and loneliness among older adults with HL. TRIAL DESIGN: A Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA)-based, 10-week, single-blind, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT). PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory adults aged 65 years or older with self-reported HL. INTERVENTIONS: Seventy-one participants were screened. Thirty-five were randomised to intervention (strength and resistance exercise, socialisation/health education) and GAR (hearing education, communication strategies, psychosocial support) or control (n=31): GAR only. OUTCOMES: Ninety-five per cent of eligible participants were randomised. GAR and exercise adherence rates were 80% and 85%, respectively. 88% of participants completed the study. Intervention group functional fitness improved significantly (gait speed: effect size: 0.57, 30 s Sit to Stand Test: effect size: 0.53). Significant improvements in emotional and social loneliness (effect size: 1.16) and hearing-related quality of life (effect size: 0.76) were related to GAR attendance and poorer baseline hearing-related quality of life. Forty-two per cent of participants increased social contacts outside the study. DISCUSSION: Walk, Talk and Listen was feasible and acceptable. Exercise and socialisation/health education improved loneliness and key fitness measures but provided no additional benefit to GAR only for loneliness. This is the first preliminary evidence about the benefits of exercise on fitness and GAR on loneliness among older adults with HL. IMPLICATIONS: This pilot trial provides key information on the sample size required for a larger, longer term RCT to determine the enduring effects of this holistic intervention addressing the negative psychosocial and musculoskeletal downstream effects of HL among older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".