Adolescent-Centered mHealth Applications in a Collaborative Care Model: A Virtual Focus Group Study With Audiologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Technology-enabled care, including the use of mobile health (mHealth), is emerging as a viable hearing health care delivery method. While the integration of mHealth with adult populations currently supports a wide array of hearing services, a better understanding of the implementation across the lifespan is needed. Literature surrounding the unique population of adolescent hearing aid users is currently lacking. Research is needed to highlight factors important to the use and clinical integration of mHealth hearing aid applications (apps) with adolescents. This study explored two primary objectives: (a) audiologists' perceptions around the use of mHealth apps to enable collaborative, child-inclusive hearing aid personalization, and (b) person-centered ideation around potential app design components to benefit users aged 12 to 17 years. METHOD: Twelve audiologists participated in virtual synchronous focus groups, across three group sessions using Cisco Webex. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive, codebook thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Six main themes resulted from group discussion analyses: (a) client candidacy: characteristics impacting suitability for mHealth use; (b) clinical implementation: organizational, professional, or patient-level strategies for mHealth adoption; (c) collaboration: the use of two or more individuals working together; (d) empowerment: process of acquiring and using knowledge, skills, and strategies; (e) remote technology: technologies enabling remote hearing aid personalization; and (f) application functionality and design: features and characteristics important to an adolescent-focused app. CONCLUSIONS: Findings identified the potential for clinical integration of hearing aid apps with adolescents in a collaborative care model, including consideration of child-specific use patterns, outcomes, and key design and technology components to support real-world implementation and use. Results may guide development and tailoring efforts around existing and future hearing aid apps for use with adolescent populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".