A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Randomized trial of a hearing conservation intervention for rural students: long-term outcomes. | LitMetric

Objectives: We had the rare opportunity to conduct a cluster-randomized controlled trial to observe the long-term (16-year) effects of a well-designed hearing conservation intervention for rural high school students. This trial assessed whether the intervention resulted in (1) reduced prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) assessed clinically and/or (2) sustained use of hearing protection devices.

Methods: In 1992-1996, 34 rural Wisconsin schools were recruited and 17 were assigned randomly to receive a comprehensive, 3-year, hearing conservation intervention. In 2009-2010, extensive efforts were made to find and contact all students who completed the original trial. Participants in the 16-year follow-up study completed an exposure history questionnaire and a clinical audiometric examination. Rates of NIHL and use of hearing protection were compared.

Results: We recruited 392 participants from the original trial, 200 (53%) from the intervention group and 192 (51%) from the control group. Among participants with exposure to agricultural noise, the intervention group reported significantly greater use of hearing protection compared with the control group (25.9% vs 19.6%; P = .015). The intervention group also reported significantly greater use of hearing protection for shooting guns (56.2% vs 41.6%; P = .029), but the groups reported similar uses of protection in other contexts. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to objective measures of NIHL.

Conclusion: This novel trial provides objective evidence that a comprehensive educational intervention by itself may be of limited effectiveness in preventing NIHL in a young rural population.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0770DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hearing protection
16
hearing conservation
12
conservation intervention
12
intervention group
12
hearing
8
intervention
8
intervention rural
8
original trial
8
control group
8
group reported
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!