Home › Research › Risk factors
Factors Associated With Hearing Aid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries
Lama Assi, Nicholas S Reed, Carrie L Nieman, Amber Willink. Innovation in aging, 2021-06-23
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Overall, 5,146 participants were included. Of them, 27% reported using hearing aids. In a multivariable logistic regression model, predisposing factors associated with greater odds of hearing aid use included older age, identifying as a man, identifying as White, having completed college, having 3 or more chronic conditions, having dementia, not having trouble seeing, not having limitations in activities of daily living, having moderate relative to low information-seeking scores, and having a personal computer at home (range of odds ratios [ORs]: 1.22-4.46). Enabling factors associated with greater odds of hearing aid use included higher income, living alone relative to living with family members other than a spouse, and having a usual source of care (range of ORs: 1.43-1.54). DISCUSSION AND In addition to addressing previously identified factors associated with hearing aid use, improving access to health care, technology, and information about hearing aids may improve the uptake of hearing aids. These findings help further inform our understanding on how to address low treatment levels of hearing loss in the community by identifying new populations to target and potentially modifiable risk factors for hearing aid use.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Assi, L., Reed, N. S., Nieman, C. L., & Willink, A. (2021). Factors Associated With Hearing Aid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Innovation in aging. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab021
Vancouver
Assi L, Reed NS, Nieman CL, Willink A. Factors Associated With Hearing Aid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Innovation in aging. 2021. doi:10.1093/geroni/igab021. PMID: 34316520.
BibTeX
@article{assi2021-34316520,
author = {Assi, Lama and Reed, Nicholas S and Nieman, Carrie L and Willink, Amber},
title = {{Factors Associated With Hearing Aid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries}},
journal = {Innovation in aging},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1093/geroni/igab021},
pmid = {34316520},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab021}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Overall, 5,146 participants were included.
- Of them, 27% reported using hearing aids.
- In a multivariable logistic regression model, predisposing factors associated with greater odds of hearing aid use included older age, identifying as a man, identifying as White, having completed college, having 3 or more chronic conditions, having dementia, not having trouble seeing, not having limitations in activities of daily living, having moderate relative to low information-seeking scores, and having a personal computer at home (range of odds ratios [ORs]: 1.22-4.46).
- Enabling factors associated with greater odds of hearing aid use included higher income, living alone relative to living with family members other than a spouse, and having a usual source of care (range of ORs: 1.43-1.54).
- DISCUSSION AND In addition to addressing previously identified factors associated with hearing aid use, improving access to health care, technology, and information about hearing aids may improve the uptake of hearing aids.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants5,146
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Innovation in aging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 5,146 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34316520) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 33 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “hearing”
119 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 119 tagged studies.