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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Exploring the Effects of the Narrative Embodied in the Hearing Aid Fitting Process on Treatment Outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ear and hearing (Print), September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1097/aud.0000000000000157 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Graham Naylor, Marie Öberg, Gunilla Wänström, Thomas Lunner |
| Abstract |
There is strong evidence from other fields of health, and growing evidence in audiology, that characteristics of the process of intervention as perceived by the client (embodied narratives) can have significant effects on treatment outcomes, independent of the technical properties of the intervention itself. This phenomenon deserves examination because studies of technical interventions that fail to take account of it may reach erroneous conclusions and because clinical practice can put such effects to therapeutic use. The aim of this study was to test the idea that embodied narratives might affect outcomes in hearing aid fitting. This was achieved by carrying out experiments in which technical (acoustic) differences between alternative hearing aid fittings were absent, while providing test subjects with a strong contrast between the processes apparently applied to derive the fittings being compared. Thus, any effects of contrasting narratives could be observed, free of acoustical confounds. The hypothesis was that narrative effects would be observed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 14% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,647,577
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#807
of 2,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,161
of 277,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 277,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.