Community-based hearing aid fitting model for adults in low-income communities facilitated by community health workers: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss affects more than 1.5 billion people worldwide, yet fewer than 10% of those who could benefit from hearing aids are able to access them. Barriers such as high costs, limited availability, and a critical shortage of trained professionals in low- and middle-income countries contribute to this gap, while emerging models of care-such as task-shifting to community healthcare workers (CHWs) supported by mHealth technologies-show promise in improving access, affordability, and outcomes in underserved communities. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and outcomes of a community-based hearing aid fitting model designed for low-income communities facilitated by community health workers (CHWs). METHOD: Using Bowen's framework, feasibility was evaluated according to service delivery and patient outcomes. A total of 25 (six male) participants were fitted with bilateral GoPrime preset, over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids by CHWs in Khayelitsha, a low-income community in Cape Town, South Africa. Benefit and satisfaction were measured using the International Outcome Inventory forHearing Aids (IOI-HA). An open-ended survey used to obtain their perceptions on the impact of the hearing aids on communication, the mHealth program, and willingness to purchase the hearing aids was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Pure Tone Average across participants was 57.3 dB HL (11.5 SD) in the left ear and 54 dB HL (14.2 SD) int he right ear. The majority of participants self-reported positive outcomes while using hearing aids, including good hearing in background noise. IOI-HA showed above standardized average scores of 3.91 for daily use, 4.46 for benefit, and 4.58 for satisfaction. 92% of the participants reported the hearing aids as extremely helpful, with 87.5% recommending hearing aids for others with hearing loss. Additionally, participants reported positive experiences with them Health support program and described the program as clear and helpful. CONCLUSION: The community-based hearing aid fitting model is feasible and demonstrated positive hearing aid outcomes in a low-income community. This approach, supported bymHealth technologies and CHWs, presents a promising solution to address the hearing care gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".