ArticleBMJ public health2024
Perceptions of hearing loss and hearing technology among the general public and healthcare providers: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of culturally Deaf people with health care access and navigation in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative co-design study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
- Patient Perceptions of Delays in Audiology Services in Johannesburg: A Secondary Analysis of Waiting Times and Alternative Service Models.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
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
abstractObjectives: Synthesise literature related to perceptions of hearing loss and hearing technology (hearing aids, cochlear implants) among the general public and healthcare providers who do not specialise in ear and hearing care. Design: Scoping review. Data sources: We searched three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Medline) in August 2023 for peer-reviewed articles from inception to 2023. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed articles or grey literature published in English or Spanish and that were observational or mixed methods were eligible for inclusion. Studies were included if they presented results from original research focused on perceptions of hearing loss and/or hearing technology among the general public and/or healthcare providers who do not specialise in ear and hearing care. Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers extracted and verified study data, which are synthesised in tables and in the text. Results: Twenty-nine peer-reviewed articles were included, 21 of which focused on samples of the general public and 8 on samples of healthcare providers. Perceptions about persons with hearing loss and the use of hearing technology are varied but often negative. The general public and healthcare providers often perceive hearing loss as less serious than other health conditions, including other sensory impairments. In many settings worldwide, the perception that non-biomedical factors, such as curses or evil spirits, can cause hearing loss is common. Importantly, studies showed training that aimed to raise awareness about hearing loss might improve negative or inaccurate perceptions of hearing loss and hearing technology. Conclusions: Perceptions of hearing loss and hearing technology are varied but often misinformed and negative. Such information could inform initiatives to raise awareness and change behaviours guided by those perceptions. Ultimately, changing the public's and healthcare providers' perceptions of hearing loss could encourage individuals with hearing loss to seek hearing care in a timely and appropriate manner.
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.