a systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999 a descriptive summary of measurement tools系统回顾研究测量和报告助听器使用自1999年以来,老年人的描述性总结测量工具.pdfVIP

下载本文档

1
0
约6.49万字
约 8页
2017-09-05 发布于上海
举报
版权申诉

a systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999 a descriptive summary of measurement tools系统回顾研究测量和报告助听器使用自1999年以来,老年人的描述性总结测量工具.pdf

1、本文档共8页，可阅读全部内容。
2、有哪些信誉好的足球投注网站（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

a systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999 a descriptive summary of measurement tools系统回顾研究测量和报告助听器使用自1999年以来,老年人的描述性总结测量工具

A Systematic Review of Studies Measuring and Reporting Hearing Aid Usage in Older Adults since 1999: A Descriptive Summary of Measurement Tools Elvira Perez1,2*, Barrie A. Edmonds1,2 1 National Biomedical Research Unit in Hearing, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Nottingham, United Kingdom, 2 School of Clinical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom Abstract Objective: A systematic review was conducted to identify and quality assess how studies published since 1999 have measured and reported the usage of hearing aids in older adults. The relationship between usage and other dimensions of hearing aid outcome, age and hearing loss are summarised. Data sources: Articles were identified through systematic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, The University of Nottingham Online Catalogue, Web of Science and through reference checking. Study eligibility criteria: (1) participants aged fifty years or over with sensori-neural hearing loss, (2) provision of an air conduction hearing aid, (3) inclusion of hearing aid usage measure(s) and (4) published between 1999 and 2011. Results: Of the initial 1933 papers obtained from the searches, a total of 64 were found eligible for review and were quality assessed on six dimensions: study design, choice of outcome instruments, level of reporting (usage, age, and audiometry) and cross validation of usage measures. Five papers were rated as being of high quality (scoring 10–12), 35 papers were rated as being of moderate quality (scoring 7–9), 22 as low quality (scoring 4–6) and two as very low quality (scoring 0–2). Fifteen different methods were identified for assessing the usage of hearing aids. Conclusions: Generally, the usage data reviewed was not well specified. There was a lack of consistency and robustness in the way that usage of hearing aids was assessed and categorised. T