MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998251119 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000839

Biopsychosocial Classification of Hearing Health Seeking in Adults Aged Over 50 Years in England

2020· article· en· W2998251119 on OpenAlexaff
Chelsea Sawyer, Christopher J. Armitage, Kevin J. Munro, Gurjit Singh, Piers Dawes

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilManchester Biomedical Research CentreNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPatient Safety Translational Research CentreNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research CentreGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelHearing aidPsychological interventionLogistic regressionAudiologyEthnic groupMedicineCross-sectional studyHearing lossPsychologyGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 10 to 35% of people with a hearing impairment own a hearing aid. The present study aims to identify barriers to obtaining a hearing aid and inform future interventions by examining the biopsychosocial characteristics of adults aged 50+ according to 7 categories: (i) Did not report hearing difficulties, (ii) Reported hearing difficulties, (iii) Told a healthcare professional about experiencing hearing difficulties, (iv) Referred for a hearing assessment, (v) Offered a hearing aid, (vi) Accepted a hearing aid, and (vii) Reported using a hearing aid regularly. DESIGN: The research was conducted using the English Longitudinal Study of Aging wave 7 with data obtained from 9666 adults living in England from June 2014 to May 2015. Cross-sectional data were obtained from a subset of 2845 participants aged 50 to 89 years of age with a probable hearing impairment measured by hearing screening (indicating a hearing threshold of >20 dB HL at 1 kHz or >35 dB HL at 3 kHz in the better ear). Classification according to hearing health-seeking category was via participants' self-report. Participants in each category were compared with people in all subsequent categories to examine the associations between each category and biopsychosocial correlates (sex, age, ethnicity, educational level, wealth, audiometric hearing level, self-reported health status, cognitive performance, attitudes to aging, living alone, and engagement in social activities) using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The proportions of individuals (N = 2845) in categories i to vii were 40.0% (n = 1139), 14.0% (n = 396), 4.5% (n = 129), 4.0% (n = 114), 1.2% (n = 34), 7.7% (n = 220), and 28.6% (n = 813), respectively. Severity of hearing impairment was the only factor predictive of all the categories of hearing health-seeking that could be modeled. Other correlates predictive of at least one category of hearing health-seeking included sex, age, self-reported heath, participation in social activities, and cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, it was shown that 40.0% of people with an audiometrically identified probable hearing impairment did not report hearing difficulties. Each of the five categories of hearing health-seeking that could be modeled had different drivers and consequently, interventions likely should vary depending on the category of hearing health-seeking.

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 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 score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207