Health literacy of patients eligible for cochlear implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is known to be an independent risk factor for inadequate health literacy. The objective of this study was to assess the level of health literacy among patients undergoing cochlear implantation to determine areas for improvement in delivery of patient information. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at the otology-neurotology clinic at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Patients eligible for cochlear implantation completed two health literacy screening tools: The Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS). RESULTS: Thirty seven patients were included (41% female, 59% male, mean age: 55 years). Most patients had adequate health literacy through BHLS (76%) and S-TOFHLA (98%) scoring. Over 80% of patients were not able to correctly recount all the operative risks associated with cochlear implant surgery and one third of patients did not correctly recount any risks associated with a cochlear implant surgery. Female sex was associated with higher scores (p=0.03) and low income (<$35,000) was associated with lower scores (p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients eligible for cochlear implants have adequate health literacy, but most are not able to recount operative risks. Educational tools are required to improve patient retention, understand, and perioperative health information delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".