ArticleHNO2016
[Employed with a hearing impairment in Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia : Regional results of the GINKO study].
Article in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHearing impairments and hearing loss cause deficits in communication ability and represent relevant participation restrictions according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). In order to counteract these participation restrictions, particularly in the workplace, several acts have been passed in Germany including SGB IX and UN-BRK.
objectiveThe implementation of these laws in the federal states Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia is presented from the perspective of hearing-impaired employees. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the GINKO study, conducted in cooperation with self-help organizations, a standardized written questionnaire with items about the workplace was administered to employed persons with hearing impairments. The questionnaire was also available online with sign language. Overall, 3189 severely disabled hearing-impaired working persons responded to the GINKO survey, of whom n = 260 (8.3 %) were from Saxony, n = 53 (1.7 %) from Saxony-Anhalt, and n = 62 (1.9 %) from Thuringia.
resultsThe majority of participants reported that they did not (yet) have an accessible workplace and that assistive services were not available to all hearing-impaired employees. This was true overall and in the three individual states. There are still considerable deficits in the implementation of legally required possibilities. No statistically significant differences exist between the three federal states in terms of utilization of legally required assistive services in the workplace or the accessibility of the workplace to hearing-impaired employees.
conclusionCauses for this might be found in insufficient information regarding legal possibilities available to hearing-impaired employees. Therefore, information about state-wide self-help organizations is important to encourage participation in working life in accordance with ICF after successful medical treatment.
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.