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 |
What Makes Adults With Hearing Impairment Take Up Hearing Aids or Communication Programs and Achieve Successful Outcomes?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ear and hearing (Print), January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1097/aud.0b013e31822c26dc |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ariane Laplante-Lévesque, Louise Hickson, Linda Worrall |
| Abstract |
Client involvement in health decision making, or shared decision making, is increasingly being advocated. For example, rehabilitation interventions such as hearing aids and communication programs can be presented as options to adults with hearing impairment seeking help for the first time. Our previous research focused on the predictors of intervention decisions when options were presented with a decision aid. However, not all participants took up the intervention they initially decided upon. Although it is interesting to understand what informs adults with hearing impairment's intervention decisions, it is their intervention uptake and outcomes which best represent the ultimate end result of the rehabilitation process. This prospective study investigated the predictors of uptake and of successful outcomes of hearing aids and communication programs in middle-aged and older adults with hearing impairment seeking help for the first time. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Hungary | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 128 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 19% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 August 2021.
All research outputs
#5,339,368
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#280
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,395
of 250,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 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 well, scoring higher than 85% 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 250,100 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.