ArticleInnovation in aging2024
Positive Impact of an Educational Brochure on Follow-Up for a Formal Hearing Evaluation.
Article in Innovation in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Half of older persons experience serious hearing loss, yet it remains under-assessed in primary care clinics. Providers note time constraints as barriers and patients often minimize or deny their hearing loss. We tested the effectiveness of a simple hearing screen in primary care settings and whether including a brochure describing hearing loss, its consequences, and treatment would increase referrals for formal audiometric assessments. Research Design and Methods: We designed a longitudinal effectiveness study assessing three interventions: Screening alone; Screening plus a brochure handed to the person testing positive; and Screening plus the brochure with a brief review. The screening was accomplished by intake personnel. The results of a positive screen were given to the primary care practitioner. The approach was designed to enable its use across a range of primary care settings. Follow-ups occurred at 4 and 8 months. Results: A total of 111 older adults attending 7 primary care clinics screened positive for having possible hearing loss by intake personnel. A total of 46 received the educational brochure. Physicians discussed test results with two-thirds yet recommended further testing for only half of the participants. Physician recommendations were strongly motivating (OR = 9.12, 95% CI: 3.54-23.52) and those receiving the brochure were still more likely to seek further testing (OR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.07-6.36) even when physician recommendations were controlled. Additionally, when combined, the 2 options were strongly motivating: all participants receiving both a referral and a brochure sought further testing. Discussion and Implications: A simple screen and educational brochure on hearing loss improved follow-up for a formal hearing evaluation which may improve hearing health care and minimize negative outcomes. The study also identified barriers to implementation, including how to motivate practitioners and assist intake personnel in integrating hearing screening into their routine intake procedures, supporting further research.
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.