Hearing Aid Adoption is Associated with the Type of Significant Other in Attendance at Hearing Care Appointments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing evidence to suggest that the implementation of family-centered care practices in clinical audiology yields positive patient outcomes. Previous work showed that significant-other attendance at audiology appointments, a recommended practice consistent with family-centered care, was associated with greater odds of hearing aid adoption and increased satisfaction with hearing aids. The primary goal of this retrospective explorative study was to investigate the unexplored question of whether an association exists between the type of significant other (SO) in attendance at appointments and hearing aid adoption. The study sample consisted of adult patients from a chain of private clinics in the United Kingdom who either attended their audiology appointment with a SO (n = 10,015) or alone (n = 37,152). Six SO types were identified and classified: partner (n = 6,608), parent (n = 76), child (n = 2,577), sibling (n = 208), friend (n = 518), and carer (n = 28). In addition to replicating previous findings which showed that significant-other attendance at audiology appointments was positively associated with hearing aid adoption, results from the current paper also revealed that the odds of hearing aid adoption were greater if the SO was of a stronger relationship tie (i.e., partners, parents, children, and siblings) and not a weaker relationship tie (i.e., friends, carers). These findings suggest that an extension of the non-audiological factor of significant-other attendance during the hearing rehabilitation process should be considered: the relationship type patients have with their significant others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".