↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
85 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.
Article details
Title
Current process in hearing-aid fitting appointments: An analysis of audiologists’ use of behaviour change techniques using the behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1)
Published in
International Journal of Audiology, July 2016
DOI 10.1080/14992027.2016.1197425
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To observe and analyse the range and nature of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) employed by audiologists during hearing-aid fitting consultations to encourage and enable hearing-aid use. Non-participant observation and qualitative thematic analysis using the behaviour change technique taxonomy (version 1) (BCTTv1). Ten consultations across five English NHS audiology departments. Audiologists engage in behaviours to ensure the hearing-aid is fitted to prescription and is comfortable to wear. They provide information, equipment, and training in how to use a hearing-aid including changing batteries, cleaning, and maintenance. There is scope for audiologists to use additional BCTs: collaborating with patients to develop a behavioural plan for hearing-aid use that includes goal-setting, action-planning and problem-solving; involving significant others; providing information on the benefits of hearing-aid use or the consequences of non-use and giving advice about using prompts/cues for hearing-aid use. This observational study of audiologist behaviour in hearing-aid fitting consultations has identified opportunities to use additional behaviour change techniques that might encourage hearing-aid use. This information defines potential intervention targets for further research with the aim of improving hearing-aid use amongst adults with acquired hearing loss.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 19%
Psychology 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 29 34%
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 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,988
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Audiology
#1,188
of 1,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,504
of 351,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Audiology
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 351,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.