Barriers and enablers to referral of older adults to hearing care: a cross-sectional questionnaire study of Australian general practitioners
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 Acquired hearing loss has significant negative effects on quality of life, general health, maintenance of independence, and healthy aging. Despite this, rates of self-directed help seeking are low, as are referral rates from general practice to hearing care. This study aimed to explore the barriers and enablers to general practitioner (GP) referral of adults aged 50+ years to hearing care. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire was designed using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change and administered to a self-selected sample of 103 Australian GPs. Results Identified enablers included positive beliefs about the consequences of hearing rehabilitation and experiencing positive role models of hearing care including referral. Contextual issues such as time constraints, costs of hearing care, and limited availability of local audiology resources were the most frequently cited barriers to referral. Content analysis of free-format responses yielded 25 themes in total, eight of which were not previously documented in the published literature. Conclusions GP beliefs about hearing care and the outcomes of referral were generally positive, however, logistical concerns and contextual constraints such as restricted appointment times were prominent barriers to hearing care referral. Identifying the key barriers and enablers to GP referral of older adults to hearing care will facilitate the design of targeted behavioural interventions aimed at increasing referral rates. Further qualitative investigation of the key modifiable barriers and enablers identified in this study is warranted to clarify how best to address these in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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