MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391448770 · doi:10.1111/jgs.18784

The clinical use of personal hearing amplifiers in facilitating accessible patient–provider communication: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4391448770 on OpenAlexaff
Raphaelle Koerber, Kristina M. Kokorelias, Samir K. Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInternational Federation on AgeingSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicinePsycINFOMEDLINEHearing lossPsychological interventionCochrane LibraryClinical trialMeta-analysisAudiologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older adults with hearing loss struggle to communicate with care providers and experience higher mortality rates when hospitalized (Genther et al., 2015), even after controlling for age and comorbidities. Personal hearing amplifiers (PHAs), (e.g., Pocketalkers™), can improve communication with older patients. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify research gaps and summarize findings on the clinical use of PHAs with patients with hearing loss. After refining search terms relating to hearing loss and PHAs, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, ERIC (Proquest), PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry. We identified articles published in English between 1980 and 2022 that reported empirical outcomes relating to PHA use in clinical settings. Two reviewers independently extracted data from articles. We then organized data into an evidence map, and a narrative review summarizing outcomes. RESULTS: From 4234 initially identified titles and abstracts, 12 met our criteria as full texts. These included three surveys on clinicians' awareness and use of PHAs, one evaluation of the acoustic output of a PHA, and eight interventions wherein PHAs were provided to patients with hearing loss. These papers used 10 different terms for PHAs and largely did not cite one another. Results showed high levels of satisfaction with PHAs, and consistently improved speech understanding. Despite this, care providers used devices inconsistently, with challenges around provider awareness, and device maintenance and location tracking. CONCLUSIONS: PHAs have a consistent positive effect on patients' ability to understand their care providers despite hearing loss. Barriers and facilitators to their use in clinical settings should be further explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→