A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of motivational interviewing in new hearing aid users (MI-HAT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is the third leading global cause of disability and is associated with poorer quality of life. Hearing aids are often recommended for hearing loss; however, hearing aid uptake and use rates are perpetually low. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a patient-centered counseling aimed at addressing the desire in the patient to change their behavior. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of one-on-one MI sessions on hearing aid use among new adult users. METHODS: A multi-center, prospective, randomized patient-blind controlled trial with a pre- and post-tests design. New hearing aid users ≥ 18 years of age will be recruited from Vancouver, Canada. They will be randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. The treatment group will attend a one-on-one MI session hosted by a practicing MI therapist in addition to standard in-person audiological care. The control group will receive standard in-person audiological care. Data is collected at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months' follow-ups. The primary outcomes are data-logged hearing aid use hours and patient-reported outcomes as measured by the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids questionnaire. Associations between intervention and hearing aid use hours and self-reported outcome measures will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy of one-on-one MI in improving hearing aid use in new adult users in the short and long terms. Results will contribute to the evidence on whether MI counseling has an effect on hearing aid use and may guide future clinical practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04673565 . Registered on 17 December 2020.
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 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 | 0.115 | 0.539 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".