↓ Skip to main content

Assessing hearing loss self-management in older adults

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Audiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Assessing hearing loss self-management in older adults
Published in
International Journal of Audiology, October 2017
DOI 10.1080/14992027.2017.1390268
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Convery, Carly Meyer, Gitte Keidser, Louise Hickson

Abstract

To evaluate the capacity of a self-management assessment tool to identify unmet hearing health care (HHC) needs; to determine whether such an assessment yields novel and clinically useful information. Hearing loss self-management (HLSM) was assessed with the Partners in Health scale and the Cue and Response interview from the Flinders Chronic Condition Management Program™. The results of the scale and the interview were compared to determine the extent to which they each contributed to the assessment of HLSM. Thirty older adults who currently receive HHC. The two assessment tools were useful in identifying the specific domains in which participants lacked good HLSM skills. While participants tended to have a high level of knowledge about hearing loss and technology-based interventions, many reported the presence of unmet psychosocial needs with no clear plan for addressing them. There was considerable variation in terms of the extent to which their audiologists facilitated shared decision-making. The results suggest that HLSM has the potential to play an important role in audiological rehabilitation. A HLSM assessment tool that more precisely matches the unique needs of people with hearing loss should be developed, along with interventions to meet those needs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Psychology 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Engineering 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 17 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,481,888
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Audiology
#983
of 1,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,694
of 328,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Audiology
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 328,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.