METHODS: The reporting of this systematic review is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out a literature search through three databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science) and targeted original article published in English between 2012 and 2021. Quality appraisal of the eligible articles was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using content analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 86 studies were included. We found a variety of questionnaires assessing risk perception of NCDs, with many differences in their development, domains, items and validity. We also identified several personal, sociopsychological and structural factors associated with risk perception of NCDs.
LIMITATIONS: Most of the included studies were of cross-sectional design, and therefore the quality of evidence was considered low and exhibit a high risk of bias. The role of publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we did not include grey literature. Additionally, language bias must be considered as we only included English-language publications.
CONCLUSION: Further development and testing of available questionnaire is warranted to ensure their robustness and validity in measuring risk perception of NCDs. All the identified factors deserve further exploration in longitudinal and experimental studies.
DESIGN: For each participant, the output of the initial hearing aid fitting was compared to DSL v5.0 Child prescriptive targets and again after the fitting was adjusted using coupler-based verification and RECD measures. Outcomes for initial and adjusted fittings were examined using the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII), Parent's Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) rating scale, and speech perception tests in quiet and noise.
STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty-eight children aged 3 months to 17 years with moderate to profound hearing loss participated in the study.
RESULTS: Fit-to-targets improved significantly after hearing aids were adjusted to match targets to within 5 dB RMSE. Adjusted hearing aids provided increased aided audibility compared to initial fittings and resulted in improved speech perception scores and parent-reported hearing performance. Fifty percent of the children aged 6 to 17 years preferred their adjusted fitting compared to 10% who preferred their initial fitting.
CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in fit-to-target to a validated paediatric prescriptive formula using best practice procedures can result in improved auditory outcomes and possible self-reported satisfaction.
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional study which sampled 562 respondents across the Klang Valley, Malaysia using a stratified quota sampling method and a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographic data, self-medication practices and perception towards self-medication. Perception towards self-medication was measured using 20 statements with a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive and inferential tests as well as factor analysis were used to analyse the data.
KEY FINDINGS: The overall prevalence of self-medication for minor ailments was 63.5%. Self-medication was practised to a similar degree regardless of respondent demographics. Respondents most frequently obtained their medicines for self-medication of minor ailments from pharmacies without consulting the pharmacist (68.6%), followed by using leftover medications at home (44.8%) and obtaining medicines from friends and family (16.0%). Factor analysis revealed that self-medication behaviour is driven by good perception towards self-medication in terms of efficacy, safety and convenience, as well as by previous personal or shared experiences.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of self-medication is high among adults in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. Adults who self-medicate view the consequences of self-medication in a positive light and may be influenced by previous personal or shared experiences. As certain risks with self-medication may be underestimated, efforts to educate the public while promoting a more proactive approach among healthcare professionals should be encouraged.
METHODS: We used different methods, including one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), linear regression, mediating effect, and moderating effect, to test the four hypotheses. Four experiments in the study were conducted from May 2022 and August 2022 and involved undergraduates from a university and volunteers recruited online. All participants are adults and verbally agree to participate voluntarily. Study 1a (N = 96 (male 47, female 49), participants from a business school in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and verified the effect of resource scarcity on consumer HISC preference by using linear regression (H1). Study 1b (N = 191 (male 98, female 93), students and teachers from a university in China) measured resource scarcity in the laboratory experiments and manipulated positively and negatively valenced experiences. Using the PROCESS SPSS Mode l, we verified that negatively valenced stimuli also lead to higher levels of arousal, which in turn restores the self-discrepancy caused by resource scarcity (H2). Study 2 (an online experiment, N = 182 (male 91, female 91), participants from China) manipulated the resource scarcity in a color sensory stimulant context, replicating the preliminary effect and examined the mediating effect of the self-worth by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 4 (H3). Study 3 (an online experiment, N = 251 (male 125, female 126), participants from China) manipulated resource scarcity and self-acceptance in the tactile sensory experience, and tested the moderating effect of self-acceptance by using the PROCESS SPSS Mode 8 (H4).
RESULTS: Four studies suggest that not only do individuals facing resources scarcity prefer HISC but also that this consumption is mediated and moderated by self-worth and self-acceptance, respectively. This preference for HISC is negated when individuals have high self-acceptance traits. The findings are tested in the auditory domain (as evidenced by a propensity for louder volume), the visual domain (as evidenced by a propensity for more intense colors), and the tactile domain (as evidenced by a propensity for more intense need for touch). The findings also demonstrate that individual preferences for HISC is shown to operate regardless of the valence (positive valence vs. negative valence) of the sensory consumption.
CONCLUSIONS: Across four experiments, we find that individuals who are subjected to resource scarcity show a preference for high-intensity sensory consumption in the auditory, visual, and tactile domains. We also find that both negatively and positively valenced sensory stimuli have the same impact on resource-scarce individuals' preference for HISC. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the sense of self-worth significantly mediates the effect of resource scarcity on HISC. Finally, we reveal that self-acceptance moderates the effect of resource scarcity on HISC preference.
METHODS: Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.