↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s135390
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vinaya Manchaiah, Brian Taylor, Ashley Dockens, Nicole Tran, Kayla Lane, Mariana Castle, Vibhu Grover

Abstract

This systematic literature review is aimed at investigating applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss. This review discusses three categories of direct-to-consumer hearing devices: 1) personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), 2) direct-mail hearing aids, and 3) over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids. A literature review was conducted using EBSCOhost and included the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. After applying prior agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 reports were included in the review. Included studies fell into three domains: 1) electroacoustic characteristics, 2) consumer surveys, and 3) outcome evaluations. Electroacoustic characteristics of these devices vary significantly with some meeting the stringent acoustic criteria used for hearing aids, while others producing dangerous output levels (ie, over 120-dB sound pressure level). Low-end (or low-cost) devices were typically poor in acoustic quality and did not meet gain levels necessary for most adult and elderly hearing loss patterns (eg, presbycusis), especially in high frequencies. Despite direct-mail hearing aids and PSAPs being associated with lower satisfaction when compared to hearing aids purchased through hearing health care professionals, consumer surveys suggest that 5%-19% of people with hearing loss purchase hearing aids through direct-mail or online. Studies on outcome evaluation suggest positive outcomes of OTC devices in the elderly population. Of note, OTC outcomes appear better when a hearing health care professional supports these users. While some direct-to-consumer hearing devices have the capability to produce adverse effects due to production of dangerously high sound levels and internal noise, the existing literature suggests that there are potential benefits of these devices. Research of direct-to-consumer hearing devices is limited, and current published studies are of weak quality. Much effort is needed to understand the benefits and limitations of such devices on people with hearing loss.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Psychology 7 13%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 15 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,429,902
of 17,364,317 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#176
of 1,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,065
of 274,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#10
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,364,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 274,132 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.