Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30451099›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

What Keeps Older Adults With Hearing Impairment From Adopting Hearing Aids?

Maike A S Tahden, Anja Gieseler, Markus Meis, Kirsten C Wagener, Hans Colonius

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids Challenge the Core Values of Traditional Audiology.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Open Speech Platform: Democratizing Hearing Aid Research.International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare : [proceedings]. International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maike A S Tahden1 Cluster of Excellence 'Hearing4all', University of Oldenburg, Germany.
Anja Gieseler1 Cluster of Excellence 'Hearing4all', University of Oldenburg, Germany.
Markus Meis1 Cluster of Excellence 'Hearing4all', University of Oldenburg, Germany.
Kirsten C Wagener1 Cluster of Excellence 'Hearing4all', University of Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2858-2789
Hans Colonius1 Cluster of Excellence 'Hearing4all', University of Oldenburg, Germany.
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare elderly individuals who are hearing impaired but inexperienced in using hearing aids (hearing aid non-users; HA-NU) with their aided counterparts (hearing aid users; HA-U) across various auditory and non-auditory measures in order to identify differences that might be associated with the low hearing aid uptake rate. We have drawn data of 72 HA-NU and 139 HA-U with a mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and matched these two groups on the degree of hearing impairment, age, and sex. First, HA-NU and HA-U were compared across 65 auditory, cognitive, health-specific, and socioeconomic test measures as well as measures assessing technology commitment. Second, a logistic regression approach was performed to identify relevant predictors for using hearing aids. Finally, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the matching approach. Group comparisons indicated that HA-NU perceive their hearing problem as less severe than their aided counterparts. Furthermore, HA-NU showed worse technology commitment and lower socioeconomic status than HA-U. The logistic regression revealed self-reported hearing performance, technology commitment, and the socioeconomic and health status as the most important predictors for using hearing aids.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHearing AidsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedAge FactorsAttitude to ComputersCognitionCorrection of Hearing ImpairmentCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHealth StatusHearingHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansagingcognitionhearing losssocioeconomic statustechnologies

Identifiers

PMID30451099
PMCPMC6243636
OpenAlexW2900928305

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.