ArticlePloS one2022
Perception and expectations of personal sound amplification products in Korea: A hospital-based, multi-center, cross-sectional survey.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Personal Sound Amplification Products Versus Hearing Aids for Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Trial
- Feasibility of a Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid App for Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss: Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Trial
- Comparison of Test-Retest Reliability of Sound Field Audiometry Between a Newly Designed System for Small Audiometric Booths and a Conventional Sound Field System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Practical Guidelines for Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Application and Personal Sound Amplification Device Usage to Correct Hearing Loss in Korea Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial by the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center.Journal of audiology & otology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate current perception and expected price of personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) and to analyze influencing factors through multi-center hospital-based surveys of outpatients, caregivers, and hearing experts.
methodsA multi-center exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted in two groups of respondents with two separate surveys: 1) a perception survey of patients and caregivers who visited an otorhinolaryngology outpatient clinic in 5 general hospitals and 2) an opinion survey of hearing specialists about the expected price of PSAPs. A total of 197 outpatient visitors responded to the perception survey, and 42 hearing specialists responded to the opinion survey.
resultsOverall perception score (18 questions) was 3.04 (95% CI, 3.00-3.09). When 5 categories of perception (knowledge, needs, cost, expectation, and information categories) were analyzed, cost and expectation showed the highest scores of 3.33 (95% CI, 3.21-3.44) and 3.33 (95% CI, 3.27-3.40), respectively, and needs showed the lowest score of 2.23 (95% CI, 1.97-2.49). The ≥ 60-year-old group showed significantly higher perception of PSAPs (P = 0.002), and the individuals with greater severity of subjective hearing loss showed significantly higher perception of PSAPs (P = 0.002). The expected price of PSAPs of the outpatient visitors was 933.9 USD (95% CI, 811.9-1056.0) per ear. Mean expected price of PSAPs of hearing specialists was 291.3 USD (95% CI, 238.2-344.3) per ear.
conclusionThe perception rate of PSAPs was very low, and there was a discrepancy in the expected price of PSAPs between patients/caregivers and hearing experts. Hearing specialists should make effort to improve perception of PSAPs.
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.