Client and Clinician Perspectives on the Roles and Responsibilities of Hearing Care Practitioners in Addressing Health Domains Beyond Hearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hearing loss (HL) has been associated with declines for cognitive, physical, and other facets of health. Accordingly, hearing care practitioners (HCPs) may have a responsibility to address health domains beyond hearing. The current study compared client and HCP attitudes toward the role of HCPs in addressing such domains. METHOD: One thousand four hundred one clients and 94 HCPs were recruited from Connect Hearing, a network of audiology clinics across North America. Clients and HCPs completed questionnaires focused on five health domains associated with HL (cognitive health, socioemotional health, physical health, mobility and balance, and overall wellness). Prior to their hearing care appointment, clients indicated their expectations of HCPs to address such domains. Concurrently, HCPs indicated their perceived ability to address the domains. RESULTS: HCP ability was significantly greater than client expectations within the domains of cognitive and socioemotional health, while client expectations were greater than HCP ability within the domains of physical health and mobility and balance. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs report that they are generally capable of fulfilling their role and meeting their clients' expectations across health domains beyond hearing. Potential strategies to enhance alignment between client expectations and HCP ability are discussed. Such strategies include holistic and integrated care. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29525603.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".