ArticleBMJ open2022
What factors are important to whom in what context, when adults are prescribed hearing aids for hearing loss? A realist review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- Hearing Aid Use Time Is Causally Influenced by Psychological Parameters in Mildly Distressed Patients with Chronic Tinnitus and Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHearing aids are the gold standard treatment to help manage hearing loss. However, not everyone who needs them has them, and of those who do, a significant proportion of people do not use them at all, or use them infrequently. Despite literature reviews listing key barriers and enablers to the uptake and use of hearing aids, there is little evidence to describe how this varies by population and context. This review will describe METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aims of this review are as follows: (1) To iteratively review and synthesise evidence surrounding the provision of hearing aids for hearing loss in adults. (2) To generate a theory-driven understanding of factors that are important, for whom, and in what context. (3) To develop a programme theory describing contexts that can support the provision of hearing aids to result in improved outcomes for adults with hearing loss. A scoping literature search will aid the development of programme theories, to explain how the intervention is expect to work, for whom, in what circumstances and in which contexts. We will locate evidence in the following databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMED, Web of Science with no date restrictions. A realist analytic approach will be used to refute and refine these initial programme theories. Throughout the review, relevant key stakeholders (eg, patients and clinicians) will be consulted to test and refine the programme theories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee: (FMHS 95-0820) and the London Brent NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/PR/0259). The review will be reported according to the RAMESES guidelines and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021282049.
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.