Hearing loss and hearing needs in an adult homeless population: a prospective cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given that hearing loss is associated with increased social isolation, reduced earning potential and neurocognitive disease, findings of uncorrected hearing loss in the homeless population have important policy implications. We sought to estimate the prevalence of hearing impairment in an adult homeless population. METHODS: We recruited adult (age ≥ 18 yr) homeless people across 10 homeless shelters in Toronto between April and June 2018 using a 2-stage sampling technique. Participants were interviewed by 1 interviewer using a modified survey that had been used in previous studies looking at other health needs in homeless populations. A comprehensive head and neck examination and audiometric evaluation were performed in each participant by an otolaryngologist and an audiologist. Descriptive statistics were estimated. Audiometric data were standardized directly for age and sex to facilitate direct comparisons with the general Canadian population. RESULTS: Of the 132 people invited, 100 (75.8%) agreed to participate. The median age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-58) years. The median duration of homelessness was 24 (IQR 6-72) months. Although most participants (78) had some form of extended health care benefits through social assistance, only 22/78 (28%) were aware that hearing tests and hearing aids were covered through these programs. After direct standardization for age and sex, the proportions of participants with a speech-frequency and high-frequency hearing loss were 39.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.4%-49.3%) and 51.9% (95% CI 42.2%-61.4%), respectively. Nineteen participants were hearing aid candidates, only 1 of whom owned functional hearing aids. Rates of speech-frequency hearing loss (39.5%, 95% CI 30.4%-49.3% v. 19.2%, 95% CI 16.9%-21.7%) and high-frequency hearing loss (51.9%, 95% CI 42.2%-61.4% v. 35.5%, 95% CI 33.1%-37.7%) were substantially higher than in the general Canadian population. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that homeless adults have a high prevalence of hearing impairment, even when living within a system of universal health insurance; awareness of health care benefits through social assistance programs was poor. Results from this study may prompt initiatives surrounding homeless outreach and health screening.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".