↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Social representation of “hearing loss”: cross-cultural exploratory study in India, Iran, Portugal, and the UK

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Social representation of “hearing loss”: cross-cultural exploratory study in India, Iran, Portugal, and the UK
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s91076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vinaya Manchaiah, Berth Danermark, Tayebeh Ahmadi, David Tomé, Fei Zhao, Qiang Li, Rajalakshmi Krishna, Per Germundsson

Abstract

Hearing loss is one of the most common chronic conditions in older adults. In audiology literature, several studies have examined the attitudes and behavior of people with hearing loss; however, not much is known about the manner in which society in general views and perceives hearing loss. This exploratory study was aimed at understanding the social representation of hearing loss (among the general public) in the countries of India, Iran, Portugal, and the UK. We also compared these social representations. The study involved a cross-sectional design, and participants were recruited using the snowball sampling method. A total of 404 people from four countries participated in the study. Data were collected using a free-association task where participants were asked to produce up to five words or phrases that came to mind while thinking about hearing loss. In addition, they were also asked to indicate if each word they presented had positive, neutral, or negative associations in their view. Data were analyzed using various qualitative and quantitative methods. The most frequently occurring categories were: assessment and management; causes of hearing loss; communication difficulties; disability; hearing ability or disability; hearing instruments; negative mental state; the attitudes of others; and sound and acoustics of the environment. Some categories were reported with similar frequency in most countries (eg, causes of hearing loss, communication difficulties, and negative mental state), whereas others differed among countries. Participants in India reported significantly more positive and fewer negative associations when compared to participants from Iran, Portugal, and the UK. However, there was no statistical difference among neutral responses reported among these countries. Also, more differences were noted among these countries than similarities. These findings provide useful insights into the public perception of hearing loss that may prove useful in public education and counseling.

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Psychology 14 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 8 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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
#1,938,793
of 17,043,172 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#244
of 1,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,907
of 372,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#6
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,043,172 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 372,347 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 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.