ArticleBMC medicine2024
A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis of innovation and regulation in hearing health care.
Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deaf people's experience of the digital transformation of UK healthcare services: a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A Quasi-Experimental Study Protocol on the Impact of a Mobile Health Program for HIV Counseling and Testing in the Deaf Community.F1000Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe hearing health sector is an example of a health sector that is experiencing a period of rapid innovation driven by digital technologies. These innovations will impact the types of interventions and services available to support the communication of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. This study explored the perceptions of informed participants on the topic of innovation and regulation within hearing healthcare in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK).
methodsParticipants (N = 29, Australia [n = 16], UK [n = 13]) were purposively sampled and joined one of two online workshops. Participants included adults with hearing loss and family members, hearing health professionals, academics/researchers, representatives of hearing device manufacturers, regulators and policymakers. Workshop data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsParticipants conceptualised the hearing health sector as a network of organisations and individuals with different roles, knowledge and interests, in a state of flux driven by innovation and regulation. Innovation and regulation were perceived as mechanisms to ensure quality and mitigate risk within a holistic approach to care. Innovations encompassed technological as well as non-technological innovations of potential benefit to consumers. Participants agreed it was essential for innovation and regulation to be congruent with societal values. Critical to ethical congruence was the involvement of consumers throughout both innovation and regulation stages, and the use of innovation and regulation to tackle stigma and reduce health disparities. Participants expressed the desire for accessible and inclusive innovation in the context of fair, transparent and trustworthy commercial practices.
conclusionsThis study explored how stakeholders within the hearing health sector understand and make sense of innovation and the role of regulation. Overall, and despite reservations relating to health care professionals' changing roles and responsibilities, innovation and regulation were conceptualised as beneficial when situated in the context of holistic, whole-person, models of care. The results of this study will inform considerations to support the development and implementation of innovations and regulation within the hearing sector and across other health sectors influenced by technological advances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.