↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a Modified User Guide for Hearing Aid Management

Overview of attention for article published in Ear and hearing (Print), January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Evaluation of a Modified User Guide for Hearing Aid Management
Published in
Ear and hearing (Print), January 2016
DOI 10.1097/aud.0000000000000221
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Caposecco, Louise Hickson, Carly Meyer, Asaduzzaman Khan

Abstract

This study investigated if a hearing aid user guide modified using best practice principles for health literacy resulted in superior ability to perform hearing aid management tasks, compared with the user guide in the original form. This research utilized a two-arm study design to compare the original manufacturer's user guide with a modified user guide for the same hearing aid-an Oticon Acto behind-the-ear aid with an open dome. The modified user guide had a lower reading grade level (4.2 versus 10.5), used a larger font size, included more graphics, and had less technical information. Eighty-nine adults aged 55 years and over were included in the study; none had experience with hearing aid use or management. Participants were randomly assigned either the modified guide (n = 47) or the original guide (n = 42). All participants were administered the Hearing Aid Management test, designed for this study, which assessed their ability to perform seven management tasks (e.g., change battery) with their assigned user guide. The regression analysis indicated that the type of user guide was significantly associated with performance on the Hearing Aid Management test, adjusting for 11 potential covariates. In addition, participants assigned the modified guide required significantly fewer prompts to perform tasks and were significantly more likely to perform four of the seven tasks without the need for prompts. The median time taken by those assigned the modified guide was also significantly shorter for three of the tasks. Other variables associated with performance on the Hearing Aid Management test were health literacy level, finger dexterity, and age. Findings indicate that the need to design hearing aid user guides in line with best practice principles of health literacy as a means of facilitating improved hearing aid management in older adults.

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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,493,598
of 25,793,330 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#103
of 2,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,433
of 402,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,793,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 402,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.