ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2019
Enhancing Screening Systems to Facilitate Hearing-Healthcare Access: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough hearing loss is a common health issue, hearing healthcare (HHC) is poorly accessed. Screening to identify hearing loss is an important part of HHC access, specifically for those who screen positive for hearing loss and would benefit from seeing a HHC provider. New technologies can be automated to provide information and recommendations that are tailored to the needs of individual users, potentially enhancing rates of HHC access after positive screens. A greater understanding of the facilitators of postscreening HHC access that could be leveraged in such systems is needed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to identify facilitators of postscreening HHC access that can be used in automated screening systems. RESEARCH
designThis qualitative study used focus groups (FGs) to understand perceived barriers, perceived benefits, and potential cues to action, as informed by the Health Belief Model, for accessing HHC after use of automated hearing screening systems. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty individuals participated in one of seven FGs. FGs were conducted separately with three types of stakeholders: four FGs included adults who reported some degree of perceived hearing loss and had recently completed a hearing screening; two FGs included adults who had recently sought HHC for the first time because of hearing loss; and one FG involved significant others/family members of individuals with hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: FGs were 60-90 minutes in length and were led by a trained facilitator following a discussion guide. A research audiologist was present at each FG and served as a notetaker. FGs were recorded and transcribed by research team members, and transcripts were then coded in an iterative process by multiple team members. Qualitative content analysis was used to reduce data and to identify salient themes and subthemes, following an inductive approach. We focused on identifying themes that were related to facilitators of HHC access after positive screens for hearing loss and, separately, potential enhancements to automated hearing screening systems that would leverage these facilitators to improve HHC access.
resultsWe identified five key themes related to HHC access after a positive screen for hearing loss, along with ideas for enhancing automated hearing screening systems based on these themes. The themes included knowledge, trust, access, quality of life, and interpersonal influence.
conclusionsThe results of our work help inform the development of innovative hearing screening systems that can be automated to leverage individual facilitators of HHC access.
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.