Predictors of hearing screening among residents of Saudi Arabia at primary healthcare settings in Riyadh: useful insights from a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the significant prevalence of hearing impairment and the devastating impact on the quality of life, screening patterns regarding hearing loss in adults are significantly reduced. It is necessary to identify the proportion of residents of Saudi Arabia which undergo for hearing screening and identify predictors of hearing loss. Therefore, we conducted this study to identify predictors of the hearing screening among residents of Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken, and an electronic questionnaire was administered to 14,239 patients who visited primary health care centers. Primary health care centers were selected using a random sampling technique. Data was collected on hearing screening and other sociodemographic and behavioural factors along with other co-morbidities. We performed multiple logistic regressions to identify predictors that were significantly associated with hearing screening. We performed analysis using SPSS version 26.0 for Windows and reported adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 43.4% males and 65.3% married participants. Only 5.9% of the study participants reported going for hearing screening. Age (AOR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02); higher education level (AOR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.55, 3.92), full time employment (AOR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.75), part time employment (AOR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.22, 1.94), good health status (AOR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.96), and Diabetes Mellitus (AOR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.72) were found to be strong predictors of hearing screening among residents of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh. CONCLUSION: We found a very low prevalence of hearing screening among residents of Saudi Arabia. Older age, educated, employed, people with good status health, and diabetic individuals were more likely to go for hearing screening. Health literacy sessions need to be carried out to raise awareness among residents of Saudi Arabia and more robust epidemiological studies need to be carried out to explore the reasons of low hearing screening in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".