Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34932013›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

A Comparison of the Use of Smart Devices, Apps, and Social Media Between Adults With and Without Hearing Impairment: Cross-sectional Web-Based Study.

Marieke F van Wier, Emily Urry, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte, Sophia E Kramer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Can Digital Communication Protect Against Depression for Older Adults With Hearing and Vision Impairment During COVID-19?The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marieke F van WierEar & Hearing, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6464-1291
Emily UrryResearch & Development, Sonova AG, Stäfa, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6935-6513
Birgit I Lissenberg-WitteEpidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9448-1826
Sophia E KramerEar & Hearing, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0451-8179
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundeHealth and social media could be of particular benefit to adults with hearing impairment, but it is unknown whether their use of smart devices, apps, and social media is similar to that of the general population.

objectiveOur aim is to study whether adults with normal hearing and those with impaired hearing differ in their weekly use of smart devices, apps, and social media; reasons for using social media; and benefits from using social media.

methodsWe used data from a Dutch cohort, the National Longitudinal Study on Hearing. Data were collected from September 2016 to April 2020 using a web-based questionnaire and speech-in-noise test. The results from this test were used to categorize normal hearing and hearing impairment. Outcomes were compared using (multiple) logistic regression models.

resultsAdults with impaired hearing (n=384) did not differ from normal hearing adults (n=341) in their use of a smartphone or tablet. They were less likely to make use of social media apps on a smartphone, tablet, or smartwatch (age-adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.92; P=.02). Use of social media on all devices and use of other apps did not differ. Adults with hearing impairment were more likely to agree with using social media to stay in touch with family members (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16-2.07; P=.003) and friends (age-adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01-1.81; P=.046). Furthermore, they were more likely to agree with using social media to perform their work (age-adjusted OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.18; P=.03). There were no differences in the experienced benefits from social media.

conclusionsThe potential for eHealth is confirmed because adults with hearing impairment are not less likely to use smart devices than their normal hearing peers. Adults with hearing impairment are less likely to use social media apps on a smart device but not less likely to use social media on all types of internet-connected devices. This warrants further research on the types of social media platforms that adults with hearing impairment use and on the type of device on which they prefer to use social media. Given that participants with hearing impairment are more likely than their normal hearing peers to use social media to perform their work, use of social media may be seen as an opportunity to enhance vocational rehabilitation services for persons with hearing impairment.

Indexed as

Hearing LossMobile ApplicationsSocial MediaAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesSmartphoneapp usebenefits from social mediaeHealthhearing impairmentmobile phonesocial media use

Identifiers

PMID34932013
PMCPMC8726052
OpenAlexW3200607735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.