INSIGHTS ON OLDER ADULTS WITH COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND HEARING LOSS: END-USER AND CARE PARTNER PERSPECTIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hearing loss is prevalent among persons aging with cognitive impairment and can have significant repercussions for individuals and their care partners. However, hearing aid usage is low among older adults, particularly among individuals with cognitive impairment. To understand the barriers and facilitators to hearing care among persons living with cognitive impairment and their care partner and to inform the development of a hearing care intervention, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with 10 participants with cognitive impairment and their care partners. Participants were recruited from the Johns Hopkins Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center. We used heterogeneous purposive sampling to recruit participants from diverse race, ethnicities, education, and income levels. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes. Among end-users and care partners, 30% self-identified as African American, 45% as male, and 40% reported less than a college degree. Participants with cognitive impairment had a mean score of 16.8 (SD8.2) on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and mean speech frequency pure tone average of 44.9 dB HL (SD12.7). End-users and care partners identified barriers to accessing care, including stigma, cost of hearing aids, lack of availability of hearing care, and participants’ denial of hearing difficulties. Suggested facilitators for improving access to hearing care include affordable hearing aids and incorporating hearing screenings into routine care. The participants’ desire to improve communication and care partner support motivate accessing hearing care. Our findings suggest that addressing barriers, promoting affordability, and enhancing accessibility to hearing care are critical in extending care to individuals aging with cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".