Barriers and facilitators to air travel among adults with hearing loss: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarise the air travel experiences of adults with hearing loss, identifying barriers, facilitators, and implications for accessibility. DESIGN: A scoping review guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Relevant databases (Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and gray literature were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the inclusion criteria. Extracted data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, originating from the USA, Australia, Brazil, and Taiwan, and published between 2008 and 2023. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: communication barriers, accessibility challenges, and emotional impacts. These themes were mapped across the four stages of the air travel journey: pre-travel, airport, in-flight, and post-flight. Key facilitators included real-time digital updates, improved signage, travel companions, and assistive technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with hearing loss face barriers during air travel that affect their travel experience and emotional well-being. While some facilitators were identified, there remains a need for increased awareness and implementation of inclusive practices within the aviation industry. Future research should explore the effectiveness of policy interventions and evaluate airport and airline compliance with accessibility guidelines.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".