ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Disparities in Hearing Aid Use Among Those With Hearing Loss in Rural and Urban Settings.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. 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.
- Hearing Loss Among Older Adults: Epidemiology, Disparities, and Gaps in Research.Annual review of public health · 2026Review
- Bridging the Hearing Divide: Policy Solutions for Aging Americans.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular and sociodemographic factors associated with self-reported hearing loss: a cross-sectional analysis from the Polish PURE cohort.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Rural-urban differences in modifiable dementia risk factors among U.S. populations aged 45 years or older.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To investigate potential disparities in hearing aid use among urban and rural populations with hearing loss. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis. Methods: We used pooled data from the 2017 and 2018 rounds of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS). Our analytic sample was restricted to 8107 participants with hearing loss (those who reported little to a lot of trouble hearing) and with a full set of covariates. Multivariate logistic regression models for the probability of hearing aid use were estimated using a participant's place of residence (rural/urban) and household income relative to the Federal Poverty Level (low and middle income ≤ 200% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL); high income > 200% FPL) as main exposures. Results: In models using place of residence as the main exposure, we found no statistically significant difference in hearing aid use between rural and urban populations. In models combining place of residence with income, we found that respondents in the rural high-income group were at the highest odds for hearing aid use (odds ratio (OR): 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52-2.59) when compared to the rural low and middle-income group and, similarly, for the urban high-income (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.26-1.96) and urban low and middle-income groups (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.69). Conclusions: There are potential interactions of metro status and income regarding hearing aid use that are more pronounced in rural populations. This might allow policymakers to target interventions for hearing loss to rural and low-income populations. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.