↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the short-term and long-term effects of an internet-based aural rehabilitation programme for hearing aid users in general clinical practice: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the short-term and long-term effects of an internet-based aural rehabilitation programme for hearing aid users in general clinical practice: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMJ Open, June 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milijana Malmberg, Thomas Lunner, Kim Kähäri, Gerhard Andersson

Abstract

Guided internet-based intervention beyond hearing aid (HA) fitting has been shown to be efficacious in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, internet interventions have rarely been applied clinically as a part of regular aural rehabilitation (AR). Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of internet-based AR for HA users from a clinical population. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) was used as the primary outcome measure, and the Communication Strategies Scale (CSS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were used as secondary outcome measures. All questionnaires were administered before and directly after the intervention and at 6 months postintervention. We used a parallel group design (RCT). The data were collected in 2013-2014 at three different clinics. Seventy-four HA users were randomly assigned to receive either full internet-based AR (intervention group, n=37) or one element of the internet-based AR (control group, n=37). Data were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle. Each group showed improved HHIE scores over time and did not differ significantly from each other. The intervention group showed significantly greater improvement compared with the control group for the CSS total and the non-verbal subscale scores. The intervention group and control group were also subdivided into two age groups: 20-59 years and 60-80 years. Significantly better improvement on the CSS total and non-verbal subscale scores was found in the older group compared with the younger participants. This study indicates that participants in an internet-based intervention applied in general clinical practice showed improved self-reported communication skills compared with a control group. Receiving a full intervention was not more effective in improving self-reported hearing problems than receiving just one element of the internet-based intervention. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrals.gov, NCT01837550; results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 15%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 47 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#18,347
of 25,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,997
of 331,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#408
of 549 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 549 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.