ArticleAudiology research2025
Preset Hearing Aid Program Selection in Low-Income Communities: A Longitudinal Study.
Article in Audiology research, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDecentralized hearing care models facilitated by community health workers (CHWs) can improve access to care in low-income settings. Preset hearing aids, which offer user-selectable pre-developed amplification programs, may support such models, but little is known about their real-world use and alignment with clinical recommendations.
methodThis longitudinal study formed part of a feasibility project implementing the World Health Organization's (WHO's) hearing aid service delivery approach in three low-income South African communities. Adults (≥18 years) with confirmed moderate-to-severe bilateral hearing loss were fitted with preset hearing aids by trained CHWs. Devices offered four preset amplification programs. Participant-driven selections were recorded at four distinct time points: fitting and follow-ups at 2 weeks, 2 months, and 6 months post-fitting.
resultsIn total, 36 participants (mean age = 76 years, SD = 8.9, range 50-96) were fitted with devices. Although over half (right: 52.8%, left: 58.3%) presented with high-frequency loss, only 34% initially selected the corresponding program. Most participants (80.6%,
conclusionsCHW-facilitated hearing aid delivery supports user autonomy in low-resource settings. However, frequent changes and divergence from clinically recommended programs suggest reliance on user-driven trial-and-error adjustments rather than audiometric fit, which may limit long-term benefit. Ongoing, person-centred guidance is needed for the effective use of preset hearing aids.
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.