Disparities between objectively measured hearing loss and subjectively perceived aided hearing loss: A scoping review.

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
SAGE Open Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20503121241279230
Anette Lykke Hindhede, Natascha Sofie Soendergaard, Eva Juul Toldam, Niels-Henrik Møller Hansen
{"title":"Disparities between objectively measured hearing loss and subjectively perceived aided hearing loss: A scoping review.","authors":"Anette Lykke Hindhede, Natascha Sofie Soendergaard, Eva Juul Toldam, Niels-Henrik Møller Hansen","doi":"10.1177/20503121241279230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This scoping review aims to summarize and synthesize research findings on the disparities between audiometrically diagnosed and aided hearing loss versus the individual's own experience of hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search strategy was employed across multiple databases to identify studies published between 1990 and October 2023 focusing on the experiences of hearing problems among individuals with aided hearing loss. The selected studies underwent screening based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria revolved around including papers featuring a population of adult (+18) individuals with audiometrically measured hearing loss who had undergone technological rehabilitation. Data charting was employed to provide an overview of the studies and was additionally utilized to identify key themes. Narrative analysis was used to identify subthemes within the data set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. The analysis identified five themes: \"disability experience and discrepancy between measured and self-perceived hearing loss\"; \"listening effort\"; \"mental burden/psychological consequences\"; \"factors that alleviate the consequences of HL\"; and \"sociodemographic factors.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The scoping review shows that, despite the proliferation of technological options, there is a pressing need for a more concentrated effort to identify and scrutinize the supplementary facets of hearing loss that remain inadequately addressed by current hearing technology. This includes subjective experiences associated with hearing loss that may not be effectively treated solely with hearing aids.</p>","PeriodicalId":21398,"journal":{"name":"SAGE Open Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11388300/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAGE Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241279230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This scoping review aims to summarize and synthesize research findings on the disparities between audiometrically diagnosed and aided hearing loss versus the individual's own experience of hearing loss.

Methods: A systematic search strategy was employed across multiple databases to identify studies published between 1990 and October 2023 focusing on the experiences of hearing problems among individuals with aided hearing loss. The selected studies underwent screening based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria revolved around including papers featuring a population of adult (+18) individuals with audiometrically measured hearing loss who had undergone technological rehabilitation. Data charting was employed to provide an overview of the studies and was additionally utilized to identify key themes. Narrative analysis was used to identify subthemes within the data set.

Results: A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. The analysis identified five themes: "disability experience and discrepancy between measured and self-perceived hearing loss"; "listening effort"; "mental burden/psychological consequences"; "factors that alleviate the consequences of HL"; and "sociodemographic factors."

Conclusions: The scoping review shows that, despite the proliferation of technological options, there is a pressing need for a more concentrated effort to identify and scrutinize the supplementary facets of hearing loss that remain inadequately addressed by current hearing technology. This includes subjective experiences associated with hearing loss that may not be effectively treated solely with hearing aids.

客观测量的听力损失与主观感知的辅助听力损失之间的差异:范围审查。
研究目的本范围综述旨在总结和归纳有关听力诊断和辅助听力损失与个人自身听力损失经历之间差异的研究成果:在多个数据库中采用了系统性检索策略,以确定 1990 年至 2023 年 10 月间发表的、关注听力损失患者听力问题经历的研究。所选研究根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准进行筛选。这些标准主要是纳入以听力测定听力损失并接受过技术康复的成人(18 岁以上)为研究对象的论文。数据图表用于提供研究概况,还用于确定关键主题。叙事分析用于确定数据集中的次主题:共有 11 篇文章符合纳入标准。分析确定了五个主题:"残疾经历和测量听力损失与自我感觉听力损失之间的差异";"聆听的努力";"精神负担/心理后果";"减轻 HL 后果的因素";以及 "社会人口因素":范围界定审查表明,尽管技术选择层出不穷,但仍迫切需要更加集中地努力识别和审查听力损失的补充方面,因为目前的听力技术仍未充分解决这些问题。这包括与听力损失有关的主观感受,这些感受可能无法仅通过助听器得到有效治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
SAGE Open Medicine
SAGE Open Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
289
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信