Hearing conservation program for agricultural students: short-term outcomes from a cluster-randomized trial with planned long-term follow-up
- PMID: 19800914
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.09.020
Hearing conservation program for agricultural students: short-term outcomes from a cluster-randomized trial with planned long-term follow-up
Abstract
Objectives: (1) To conduct a contemporary analysis of historical data on short-term efficacy of a 3-year hearing conservation program conducted from 1992 to 1996 in Wisconsin, USA, with 753 high school students actively involved in farm work; (2) to establish procedures for assessment of hearing loss for use in a recently funded follow-up of this same hearing conservation program cohort.
Methods: We analyzed a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial, with schools as the unit of randomization. Thirty-four rural schools were recruited and randomized to intervention or control. The intervention included classroom instruction, distribution of hearing protection devices, direct mailings, noise level assessments, and yearly audiometric testing. The control group received the audiometric testing.
Results: Students exposed to the hearing conservation program reported more frequent use of hearing protection devices, but there was no evidence of reduced levels of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL).
Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that, since NIHL is cumulative, a 3-year study was likely not long enough to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention. While improvements in reported use of hearing protection devices were noted, the lasting impact of these behaviors is unknown and the finding merits corroboration by longer term objective hearing tests. A follow-up study of the cohort has recently been started.
Similar articles
-
Randomized trial of a hearing conservation intervention for rural students: long-term outcomes.Pediatrics. 2011 Nov;128(5):e1139-46. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-0770. Epub 2011 Oct 10. Pediatrics. 2011. PMID: 21987700 Clinical Trial.
-
The impact of hearing conservation programs on incidence of noise-induced hearing loss in Canadian workers.Am J Ind Med. 2008 Dec;51(12):923-31. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20634. Am J Ind Med. 2008. PMID: 18726988
-
The contribution of focus groups in the evaluation of hearing conservation program (HCP) effectiveness.J Safety Res. 2004;35(1):91-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2003.12.001. J Safety Res. 2004. PMID: 14992850
-
[Audiometric surveillance of occupational environment].Ugeskr Laeger. 2001 Mar 12;163(11):1557-60. Ugeskr Laeger. 2001. PMID: 11268809 Review. Danish.
-
Noise-induced hearing loss and hearing conservation in mining.Occup Med (Lond). 2004 Aug;54(5):290-6. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqh075. Occup Med (Lond). 2004. PMID: 15289584 Review.
Cited by
-
Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss: a Cochrane systematic review.Int J Audiol. 2014 Mar;53 Suppl 2(0 2):S84-96. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.857436. Int J Audiol. 2014. PMID: 24564697 Free PMC article.
-
Farm and rural adolescents' perspective on hearing conservation: reports from a focus group study.Noise Health. 2015 May-Jun;17(76):134-40. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.155836. Noise Health. 2015. PMID: 25913552 Free PMC article.
-
Efficacy of technology-based interventions to increase the use of hearing protections among adolescent farmworkers.Int J Audiol. 2018 Feb;57(2):124-134. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1374568. Epub 2017 Sep 18. Int J Audiol. 2018. PMID: 28918682 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Efficacy of hearing conservation education programs for youth and young adults: a systematic review.BMC Public Health. 2018 Nov 22;18(1):1286. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6198-7. BMC Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30466413 Free PMC article.
-
A Test of Social Cognitive Theory to Increase Hearing Protection Use in Swine Buildings.J Agric Saf Health. 2022;28(4):215-228. doi: 10.13031/jash.15183. J Agric Saf Health. 2022. PMID: 38077618 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources