ArticleInternational journal of audiology2022
Experienced hearing aid users' perspectives of assessment and communication within audiology: a qualitative study using digital methods.
Article in International journal of audiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Living with age-related hearing loss and insights for hearing care: a qualitative descriptive study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Article
- Development of the First Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for Hearing Loss in Audiology Care-My Hearing PREM.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- 'The burden is very much on yourself': A qualitative study to understand the illness and treatment burden of hearing loss across the life course.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Attitudes towards hearing difficulties, health-seeking behaviour, and hearing aid use among older adults in Thailand.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore experienced hearing aid users' perspectives of audiological assessments and the patient-audiologist communication dynamic during clinical interactions.
designA qualitative study was implemented incorporating both an online focus group and online semi-structured interviews. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Iterative-inductive thematic analysis was carried out to identify themes related to assessment and communication within audiology practice. STUDY SAMPLES: Seven experienced hearing aid users took part in an online focus group and 14 participated in online semi-structured interviews (age range: 22 - 86 years; 9 males, 11 females).
resultsThemes related to assessment included the unaided and aided testing procedure and relating tests to real world hearing difficulties. Themes related to communication included the importance of deaf aware communication strategies, explanation of test results and patient centred care in audiology.
conclusionTo ensure hearing aid services meet the needs of the service users, we should explore user perspectives and proactively adapt service delivery. This approach should be ongoing, in response to advances in hearing aid technology. Within audiology, experienced hearing aid users' value (1) comprehensive, relatable hearing assessment, (2) deaf aware patient-audiologist communication, (3) accessible services and (4) a personalised approach to recommend suitable technology and address patient specific aspects of hearing loss.
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.