Factors Associated With Longitudinal Patterns of Hearing Aid Use
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
Background and Objectives: The objectives of this study are to identify patterns of hearing aid usage among U.S. National Health & Aging Trends Study (NHATS) participants and to examine users' characteristics associated with each pattern. Research Design and Methods: Using data from 666 adults ages 65 and above from NHATS, we analyzed individuals' self-reported hearing aid use from eight waves of data, 2011-2018, using group-based trajectory modeling to identify clusters of individuals with similar utilization patterns of use over time. Potential risk factors associated with membership to a specific group included baseline sociodemographic characteristics, problems with activities of daily living, presence of a caregiver, and experiencing problems with their hearing aid. We compute and analyze the odds ratios between individuals' baseline characteristics and group membership. Results: = 35, 5.2%). Individuals with an income under the poverty line had 2.9 (95% CI: 1.09, 7.75) and 2.7 times (95% CI: 1.38, 5.27) the odds of being in the interrupted and ceased use group, respectively, compared with the continued use group. Other risk factors for interrupted and ceased use included lower education and having a caregiver. Discussion and Implications: Nearly a quarter of hearing aid users experience interrupted or ceased use of hearing aids. Socioeconomic factors, such as age, income, and education, may be relevant for how individuals use assistive medical devices over time and could inform policymakers to support maintained use of hearing aids.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it