Older adults’ perceptions of current and future hearing healthcare services in Australia, England, US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A high prevalence of hearing loss in older adults contrasts with a small proportion of people who seek help. Emerging developments in hearing healthcare (HHC) could reduce costs but may not increase access. This study evaluated older adults' perceptions of current and future HHC services in Australia, England, US and Canada to explore potential levers and system improvements. METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups (n = 47) were conducted, and data were analysed using a directed content analysis. Participants were adults 60 years and older with a) no hearing problems; b) hearing problems and hearing aid use; and c) hearing problems and no hearing aid use. RESULTS: Perceived barriers, facilitators and preferences were largely consistent across countries, with stigma and trust in HHC being the barriers most often discussed. CONCLUSION: Although cost and access were consistently deemed important, there may be limited change in help-seeking and HHC uptake unless the key barriers of trust and stigma are addressed. When seeking to undertake transformative change to healthcare it is important to engage recipients of care to understand existing barriers and coproduce a user-centered solution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".