Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29844099›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Qualitative, multimethod study of behavioural and attitudinal responses to cochlear implantation from the patient and healthcare professional perspective in Australia and the UK: study protocol.

Frances Rapport, Mia Bierbaum, Catherine McMahon, Isabelle Boisvert, Annie Lau, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Sarah Hughes

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A qualitative systematic review of the impact of hearing on quality of life.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Frances RapportAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4428-2826
Mia BierbaumAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7037-4708
Catherine McMahonMacquarie University Centre for Implementation of Hearing Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Isabelle BoisvertMacquarie University Centre for Implementation of Hearing Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7050-3197
Annie LauAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3028-4222
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0296-4957
Sarah HughesMacquarie University Centre for Implementation of Hearing Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5656-1198

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe growing prevalence of adults with 'severe or greater' hearing loss globally is of great concern, with hearing loss leading to diminished communication, and impacting on an individual's quality of life (QoL). Cochlear implants (CI) are a recommended device for people with severe or greater, sensorineural hearing loss, who obtain limited benefits from conventional hearing aids (HA), and through improved speech perception, CIs can improve the QoL of recipients. Despite this, utilisation of CIs is low. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative, multiphase and multimethod dual-site study (Australia and the UK) explores patients' and healthcare professionals' behaviours and attitudes to cochlear implantation. Participants include general practitioners, audiologists and older adults with severe or greater hearing loss, who are HA users, CI users and CI candidates. Using purposive time frame sampling, participants will be recruited to take part in focus groups or individual interviews, and will each complete a demographic questionnaire and a qualitative proforma. The study aims to conduct 147 data capture events across a sample of 49 participants, or until data saturation occurs. Schema and thematic analysis with extensive group work will be used to analyse data alongside reporting of demographic and participant characteristics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this study was granted by Macquarie University (HREC: 5201700539), and the study will abide by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council ethical guidelines. Study findings will be published through peer-reviewed journal articles, and disseminated through public and academic conference presentations, participant information sheets and a funders' final report.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAge FactorsAustraliaCochlear ImplantationData CollectionFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHearing LossHumansPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomaudiologycochlear implantsfocus groupshearing lossqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29844099
PMCPMC5988079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.