ArticleCureus2023
The Hearing Aid Effect in the 2020s: Where Do We Stand?
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adolescents' Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Peers with Hearing Aids: The Hearing Aid Effect in the Mid-2020s.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Article
- Disparities in Hearing Aid Use Among Those With Hearing Loss in Rural and Urban Settings.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Toward Alleviating the Stigma of Hearing Aids: A Review.Audiology research · 2024Review
- Over-the-Counter (OTC) Hearing Aid Availability across the Spectrum of Human Skin Colors.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The 'hearing aid effect' is a negative perception toward individuals using hearing assistive devices (HADs), which is a primary reason for parents and children refusing to use them. We aimed to determine the current perception toward individuals using HADs and the associated factors. Methods A 30-item photo-based survey was conducted to analyze the participants' perception toward individuals using HADs as compared to healthy (H) individuals and individuals with disabilities (D). The survey was validated with an intrarater reliability of 86%. A cross-sectional study was conducted by approaching individuals who visited one of the largest shopping centers in a metropolitan city to participate in the survey. Demographic information, including age, gender, and educational background, was collected. Results A total of 517 participants completed the survey. Nearly two-thirds of the participants (59.7%) did not consider individuals using HADs as those who needed assistance as compared to H individuals. Interestingly, Generation X and Z participants had a significantly better perception toward individuals using HADs (63.1% and 59%, respectively) as compared to participants of the Baby Boomers generation (54.3%). The majority of participants who considered HD use a handicap compared to healthy individuals (79.9%) did not have a family member that used a HAD. Conclusion The stigma of wearing a HAD is significantly reducing with time, and the younger generations are not considering it as a disability. This is an important point that can be highlighted while counseling parents and young adults who are candidates for HAD use.
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.