Elisangela Rodrigues Brandão, Renan Dantas Aires Guimarães, Maria Júlia Galindo Soares, H. Cavalcanti
{"title":"老年人听力筛查策略:文献计量学回顾","authors":"Elisangela Rodrigues Brandão, Renan Dantas Aires Guimarães, Maria Júlia Galindo Soares, H. Cavalcanti","doi":"10.1590/1982-0216/20232525822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose: to analyze the profile of publications on methods and instruments used to screen older adults hearing. Methods: the scientific production on older adults hearing screening methods, searching for articles published between 2016 and 2022. Data were collected from PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases and the articles were categorized according to their year, study type, authors, and screening instrument. Data were also analyzed to suggest potential aspects to be addressed in future research in the area. Literature Review: altogether, 26 articles were found based on the eligibility criteria. Publications peaked in 2016, followed by 2020. Articles published in the United States predominated (18%), and HHIE-S (hearing handicap inventory for the elderly screening version) was the most used instrument; 90% of the publications were in English, and the most recurrent study type was cross-sectional, followed by instrument validation studies. Conclusion: the review points out the scarcity of scientific production on older adults hearing screening in both national and international research. The studies approached different populations, screening methods, hearing loss definitions, health systems, and public policies in the countries where they were conducted. Better methodologies must be implemented for future research in the area.","PeriodicalId":53238,"journal":{"name":"Revista CEFAC","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Older adults hearing screening strategies: a bibliometric review\",\"authors\":\"Elisangela Rodrigues Brandão, Renan Dantas Aires Guimarães, Maria Júlia Galindo Soares, H. Cavalcanti\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1982-0216/20232525822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Purpose: to analyze the profile of publications on methods and instruments used to screen older adults hearing. Methods: the scientific production on older adults hearing screening methods, searching for articles published between 2016 and 2022. Data were collected from PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases and the articles were categorized according to their year, study type, authors, and screening instrument. Data were also analyzed to suggest potential aspects to be addressed in future research in the area. Literature Review: altogether, 26 articles were found based on the eligibility criteria. Publications peaked in 2016, followed by 2020. Articles published in the United States predominated (18%), and HHIE-S (hearing handicap inventory for the elderly screening version) was the most used instrument; 90% of the publications were in English, and the most recurrent study type was cross-sectional, followed by instrument validation studies. Conclusion: the review points out the scarcity of scientific production on older adults hearing screening in both national and international research. The studies approached different populations, screening methods, hearing loss definitions, health systems, and public policies in the countries where they were conducted. Better methodologies must be implemented for future research in the area.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista CEFAC\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista CEFAC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20232525822\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista CEFAC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20232525822","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要目的:分析老年人听力筛查方法和仪器的文献资料。方法:科学制作关于老年人听力筛查的方法,检索2016 - 2022年间发表的文章。数据从PubMed、Scopus、LILACS、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar数据库中收集,并根据文章的年份、研究类型、作者和筛选工具进行分类。还对数据进行了分析,以提出在该领域未来研究中需要解决的潜在问题。文献回顾:根据入选标准共找到26篇文献。出版物在2016年达到顶峰,其次是2020年。在美国发表的文章占主导地位(18%),HHIE-S(老年人听力障碍筛查版本)是使用最多的工具;90%的出版物是英文的,最常见的研究类型是横断面研究,其次是工具验证研究。结论:综述指出,国内外在老年人听力筛查方面的研究缺乏科学成果。这些研究涉及不同的人群、筛查方法、听力损失定义、卫生系统和开展研究的国家的公共政策。未来在该领域的研究必须采用更好的方法。
Older adults hearing screening strategies: a bibliometric review
ABSTRACT Purpose: to analyze the profile of publications on methods and instruments used to screen older adults hearing. Methods: the scientific production on older adults hearing screening methods, searching for articles published between 2016 and 2022. Data were collected from PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases and the articles were categorized according to their year, study type, authors, and screening instrument. Data were also analyzed to suggest potential aspects to be addressed in future research in the area. Literature Review: altogether, 26 articles were found based on the eligibility criteria. Publications peaked in 2016, followed by 2020. Articles published in the United States predominated (18%), and HHIE-S (hearing handicap inventory for the elderly screening version) was the most used instrument; 90% of the publications were in English, and the most recurrent study type was cross-sectional, followed by instrument validation studies. Conclusion: the review points out the scarcity of scientific production on older adults hearing screening in both national and international research. The studies approached different populations, screening methods, hearing loss definitions, health systems, and public policies in the countries where they were conducted. Better methodologies must be implemented for future research in the area.