Mild matters: parental insights into the conundrums of managing mild congenital hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore and describe parental experiences related to the management of mild bilateral congenital hearing loss in children. DESIGN: Using qualitative methods, we conducted semi-structured interviews with parents/caregivers until saturation of themes was achieved. We analysed transcripts using inductive content analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Caregivers of children under 3-years-old with mild bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. RESULTS: We interviewed 12 parents. Parental perception of advice regarding hearing aid fitting was varied; almost all children were offered hearing aids. Perceived positives related to hearing aids: feeling empowered that action has been taken; improvements in the child's hearing perception and; facilitation of behavioural management. Perceived negatives of hearing aid use: difficulties with compliance resulting in parental frustration and guilt, damage/loss of equipment, discomfort, parental discord, altered quality of natural sound and potential bullying/stigma. Some parents were ambivalent about the effect of the hearing aids. Where hearing aids were offered and not fitted, there was significant ongoing uncertainty, and the family carried the burden of their decision. CONCLUSIONS: There was a wide variation in perceived advice regarding early hearing aid fitting in children with mild bilateral hearing loss. We identified parental perceptions of positive/negative impacts of hearing aid fitting and potential perceived harms from not fitting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".