| Title |
Sex-specific predictors of hearing-aid use in older persons: The age, gene/environment susceptibility - Reykjavik study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Audiology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3109/14992027.2015.1024889 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diana E. Fisher, Chuan-Ming Li, Howard J. Hoffman, May S. Chiu, Christa L. Themann, Hannes Petersen, Palmi V. Jonsson, Helgi Jonsson, Fridbert Jonasson, Johanna Eyrun Sverrisdottir, Lenore J. Launer, Gudny Eiriksdottir, Vilmundur Gudnason, Mary Frances Cotch |
| Abstract |
We estimate the prevalence of hearing-aid use in Iceland and identify sex-specific factors associated with use. Population-based cohort study. A total of 5172 age, gene/environment susceptibility - Reykjavik study (AGES-RS) participants, aged 67 to 96 years (mean age 76.5 years), who completed air-conduction and pure-tone audiometry. Hearing-aid use was reported by 23.0% of men and 15.9% of women in the cohort, although among participants with at least moderate hearing loss in the better ear (pure-tone average [PTA] of thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz ≥ 35 dB hearing level [HL]) it was 49.9% and did not differ by sex. Self-reported hearing loss was the strongest predictor of hearing-aid use in men [OR: 2.68 (95% CI: 1.77, 4.08)] and women [OR: 3.07 (95% CI: 1.94, 4.86)], followed by hearing loss severity based on audiometry. Having diabetes or osteoarthritis were significant positive predictors of use in men, whereas greater physical activity and unimpaired cognitive status were important in women. Hearing-aid use was comparable in Icelandic men and women with moderate or greater hearing loss. Self-recognition of hearing loss was the factor most predictive of hearing-aid use; other influential factors differed for men and women. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Psychology | 10 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 9% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,352,467
of 25,104,329 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Audiology
#251
of 1,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,217
of 269,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Audiology
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,104,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 269,846 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 75% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.