Influence of Hearing Loss on Social Participation in Older Adults: Results From a Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the influence of hearing loss on social participation in older adults and including its facilitators and barriers. Following the rigorous methodological framework of scoping studies, nine multidisciplinary databases were searched with 44 keywords. Published mainly in the last decade, 41 studies using primarily a quantitative cross-sectional design were selected. Older adults with hearing loss have been found to have difficulty maintaining relationships and social activities. While social support and engaged-coping strategies were major facilitators of social participation, barriers included greater hearing loss, communication difficulties, comorbidities and reduced mental health. To better promote the social participation of older adults, early detection of hearing loss, holistic assessment, and interprofessional collaboration must be considered. Future research is necessary to better address the stigma related to hearing loss in older adults and challenges of early detection, and to propose innovative solutions to develop interprofessional collaboration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it