The Role and Relevance of Hearing Dogs from the Owner’s Perspective: An Explorative Study among Adults with Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to explore perceptions and experiences about how owning a hearing dog can influence the functioning and the autonomy of people with hearing loss. Three adults participated in a semi-structured interview. The interviews were video recorded, transcribed, and coded. A procedure combining qualitative content analysis and interpretative phenomenological analysis was used. The study shows how specific aspects of hearing dogs are associated with increased autonomy and sense of security among owners. The attentive dog-owner pairing, the outstanding training and the companion role of the hearing dog are the main elements supporting the high satisfaction related by all the participants. In regard of the location context (Quebec, Canada), ongoing challenges for owners are reflected in the lack of visibility of this rehabilitation means and its poor recognition from the society, resulting in the constant burden to explain the dog's work to others. For adults with hearing loss, the hearing dog is a relevant way of offering both the benefits of functional assistance and the psychosocial support of a pet. The association between owning a hearing dog and improved overall well-being suggests that this form of rehabilitation should be considered as a pertinent option by hearing health professionals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".