ArticleTrends in amplification2012
Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods.
Article in Trends in amplification, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids for bilateral hearing impairment in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Assessment of willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening among women and couples undergoing preconception carrier screening.PloS one · 2018Trial
- Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life I: The Patients' Perspective.Ear and hearingTrial
- Factors Influencing Hearing Loss, Receipt of Hearing Evaluations, and Hearing Device use Among Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Groups.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Hearing Aids Use Preferences Among Older Adults with Hearing Loss: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- More evidence is needed to improve molecular HIV surveillance for cluster detection and response.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Results from the MarkeTrak 2022 Survey: Importance of Features and Hearing Care Professionals.Seminars in hearing · 2022Review
- Preferences for Hearing Aid Attributes Among People with Moderate or Greater Hearing Loss in Rural China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- The effects of frequency lowering on speech perception in noise with adult hearing-aid users.International journal of audiology · 2016Article
- Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss.Gerontology · 2014Article
- Noise Management Preferences During Long-Term Hearing Aid Usage and Their Relation to Audiologic Factors.Trends in hearingArticle
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low utilization of hearing aids has drawn increased attention to the study of consumer preferences using both simple ratings (e.g., Likert scale) and conjoint analyses, but these two approaches often produce inconsistent results. The study aims to directly compare Likert scales and conjoint analysis in identifying important attributes associated with hearing aids among those with hearing loss. Seven attributes of hearing aids were identified through qualitative research: performance in quiet settings, comfort, feedback, frequency of battery replacement, purchase price, water and sweat resistance, and performance in noisy settings. The preferences of 75 outpatients with hearing loss were measured with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks (the latter being analyzed using OLS [ordinary least squares] and logistic regression). Results were compared by examining implied willingness-to-pay and Pearson's Rho. A total of 56 respondents (75%) provided complete responses. Two thirds of respondents were male, most had sensorineural hearing loss, and most were older than 50; 44% of respondents had never used a hearing aid. Both methods identified improved performance in noisy settings as the most valued attribute. Respondents were twice as likely to buy a hearing aid with better functionality in noisy environments (p < .001), and willingness to pay for this attribute ranged from US$2674 on the Likert to US$9000 in the conjoint analysis. The authors find a high level of concordance between the methods-a result that is in stark contrast with previous research. The authors conclude that their result stems from constraining the levels on the Likert scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.