ArticleOTO open
Understanding Public Perception of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Sentiment and Thematic Analysis of Consumer Reviews.
Article in OTO open. 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.
- Perceptions of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Qualitative Study Informed by the Technology Acceptance Model.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze public perceptions of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids through sentiment and thematic analysis of online consumer reviews and their changes over time. Study Design: Sentiment and thematic analysis. Setting: Online reviews from third-party and product websites. Methods: All English online consumer reviews posted between 2016 and 2024 for OTC hearing aids (83 models) were recorded (n = 21,727). Sentiment analysis was performed using Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner (VADER), a rule-based sentiment analysis tool incorporating natural language processing. VADER provides scores for each review ranging from -1 (most negative), 0 (neutral), to 1 (most positive). Additional thematic analysis was performed for the top 100 most positive, neutral, and negative reviews (n = 300). Results: Overall, mean (SD) VADER sentiment score of online reviews was generally positive at 0.587 (0.411). Multivariable regression analysis showed that higher VADER scores were associated with higher-priced and behind-the-ear (BTE) type hearing aids. Although there was a significant increase in a number of reviews after the Food and Drug Administration's new establishment of the OTC hearing aid category in 2022, the mean sentiment scores slightly decreased ( Conclusion: Customers generally viewed OTC hearing aids positively, while mixed experiences were present. When used as indicated for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss, OTC hearing aids may offer a viable alternative to prescription devices, improving accessibility and affordability.
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.