A Scoping Review and Field Guide of Theoretical Approaches and Recommendations to Studying the Decision to Adopt Hearing Aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Given the low rates of hearing aid adoption among individuals with hearing loss, it is imperative to better understand the decision-making processes leading to greater hearing aid uptake. A careful analysis of the existing literature on theoretical approaches to studying these processes is needed to help researchers frame hypotheses and methodology in studies on audiology. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review with two aims. First, we examine theories that have been used to study research on hearing aid adoption. Second, we propose additional theories from the behavioral sciences that have not yet been used to examine hearing aid uptake but that can inform future research. DESIGN: We identified peer-reviewed publications whose research was driven by one or more theoretical approaches by searching through PubMed, ProQuest PsycINFO, CINHAL Plus, Web of Science, Scopus, and OVID Medline/Embase/PsycINFO. The publications were examined by two researchers for eligibility. RESULTS: Twenty-three papers were included in the analysis. The most common theoretical approaches studied include the Health Belief Model, the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change, Self-Determination Theory, and the COM-B Model. Seven other theoretical frameworks based on cognitive psychology and behavioral economics have also appeared in the literature. In addition, we propose considering nudge theory, framing effect, prospect theory, social learning theory, social identity theory, dual process theories, and affective-based theories of decision making when studying hearing aid adoption. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that, although a number of theories have been considered in research on hearing aid uptake, there are considerable methodological limitations to their use. Furthermore, the field can benefit greatly from the inclusion of novel theoretical approaches drawn from outside of audiology.
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 | 0.103 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.089 | 0.068 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.010 |
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".