ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Hearing Aids Use Preferences Among Older Adults with Hearing Loss: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults in China, yet hearing aid uptake remains substantially low. Understanding preferences for updated hearing aid attributes is essential for improving accessibility and promoting adoption, particularly amid rapid technological advancement such as over-the-counter (OTC) devices. This study aimed to elicit preferences for hearing aid attributes and examine preference heterogeneity across demographic and socioeconomic subgroups among older adults with hearing loss living in six cities in China. Patients and Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among 346 community-dwelling adults aged over 60 years with hearing loss in six cities of China. Twenty-one choice sets were generated and divided into three versions. An opt-out option was included in each choice set. Six attributes were included: out-of-pocket (OOP) cost, accessibility (OTC vs audiologist-fitted), effectiveness in noisy settings, style, battery type, and connectivity. Mixed logit and conditional logit models were estimated, with model fit compared using log likelihood, AIC, and BIC. Preference heterogeneity was examined through interaction terms between participant characteristics and attributes with significant random parameters. Results: Effectiveness in noisy settings was the most influential attribute (Coefficient=3.01, 95% CI: 2.41, 3.62), followed by accessibility. Participants preferred OTC hearing aids (Coefficient=0.89, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.18), receiver-in-canal style (Coefficient=0.40, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.76), and rechargeable batteries (Coefficient=0.38, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.59), and showed significant aversion to higher OOP costs (Coefficient=-0.03, 95% CI: -0.04, -0.02). Significant heterogeneity was observed. Cost sensitivity was lower among individuals with higher education, married status, and prior hearing aids use, but greater among those with dementia risk. OTC preference was stronger in the higher education group and weaker among participants with dementia risk. Conclusion: Older adults from six cities in China prioritize performance in noisy environments and improved accessibility when selecting hearing aids. OTC accessibility appears to be valued by respondents and may warrant further evaluation as part of broader hearing-care strategies.
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.