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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Use of Hearing Aids and Functional Capacity in Middle-Aged and Elderly Individuals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0034-1368136 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juliana Carioli, Adriane Teixeira |
| Abstract |
Introduction Hearing loss is among the sensory changes strongly associated with loss of functional capacity. Objective It aims to determine whether the use of hearing aid contributes to the improvement of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) for middle aged and elderly hearing-impaired individuals. Methods This is a descriptive, longitudinal, and interventional study. We evaluated 17 subjects, 13 (76.5%) female, aged between 58 and 96 years old (mean 77.1 ± 10.4 years). All were new users of hearing aids. Evaluation included social history, pure tone audiometry, and scale of IADL developed by Lawton and Brody. The subjects were presented daily life situations and were expected to respond if they could do them without assistance (3 points), partially assisted (2 points) or if they were unable to perform them (1 point). IADL was applied before the use of hearing aids adaptation and after a three- and six-month period of use. Results Data analysis revealed that before the use of hearing aids the average score obtained by the subjects was 22.94 ± 4.04 points. Three months after beginning the use the average score was 23.29 ± 4.12 and after six months the average score was 23.71 ± 3.69 points. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between scores obtained before the use of hearing aids and six months post-fitting (p = 0.015*) Conclusion The use of hearing aids among the subjects evaluated promoted positive changes in performing IADL, especially to using the telephone. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
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 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,258,759
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,753
of 221,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#16
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 221,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.