Literature DB >> 26766172

Effects of interventions on use of hearing protectors among farm operators: A randomized controlled trial.

Marjorie C McCullagh1, Tanima Banerjee1, Michael A Cohen1, James J Yang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three interventions designed to promote hearing protector device (HPD) use.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. STUDY SAMPLE: Farm operators (n = 491) were randomly assigned to one of five intervention groups: (1) interactive web-based information with mailed assortment of HPDs; (2) Interactive web-based information only; (3) static web-based information with mailed assortment of HPDs; (4) Static web-based information only; or (5) mailed assortment of HPDs only. Data were analysed using a mixed model approach.
RESULTS: HPD use increased among all participants, and increased more among participants receiving the mailed HPDs (with or without information) compared to participants receiving other interventions. Participants receiving the interactive web-based information had comparable increased use of HPDs to those receiving the static web-based information. Participants receiving the mailed HPDs had more positive situational influences scale scores than other participants. Program satisfaction was highest among mailed and web-based information groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A mailed assortment of hearing protectors was more effective than information. Interactive and static information delivered via web were similarly effective. Programs interested in increasing HPD use among farmers should consider making hearing protectors more available to farmers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hearing loss prevention; farmers; hearing conservation; randomized controlled trial

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26766172      PMCID: PMC4740201          DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1122239

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  46 in total

1.  Factors influencing use of hearing protection among farmers: a test of the pender health promotion model.

Authors:  Marjorie McCullagh; Sally L Lusk; David L Ronis
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.381

2.  Stories or statistics? Farmers' attitudes toward messages in an agricultural safety campaign.

Authors:  S E Morgan; H P Cole; T Struttmann; L Piercy
Journal:  J Agric Saf Health       Date:  2002-05

3.  Hearing conservation for farmers: source apportionment of occupational and environmental factors contributing to hearing loss.

Authors:  W S Beckett; D Chamberlain; E Hallman; J May; S A Hwang; M Gomez; S Eberly; C Cox; A Stark
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.162

4.  Noise exposure and hearing loss in agriculture: a survey of farmers and farm workers in the Southland region of New Zealand.

Authors:  David I McBride; Hilda M Firth; G Peter Herbison
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.162

5.  Assessment of personal protective equipment use among Midwestern farmers.

Authors:  W Scott Carpenter; Barbara C Lee; Paul D Gunderson; Dean T Stueland
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.214

6.  Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase factory workers' use of hearing protection.

Authors:  Sally L Lusk; David L Ronis; Anamaria S Kazanis; Brenda L Eakin; OiSaeng Hong; Delbert M Raymond
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.381

Review 7.  Website-delivered physical activity interventions a review of the literature.

Authors:  Corneel Vandelanotte; Kym M Spathonis; Elizabeth G Eakin; Neville Owen
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  A comparison of self-reported hearing loss and audiometry in a cohort of New York farmers.

Authors:  M I Gomez; S A Hwang; L Sobotova; A D Stark; J J May
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Perceived effects of high frequency hearing loss in a farming population.

Authors:  Michael Stewart; Jina Scherer; Mark E Lehman
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Web-based cognitive behavior therapy: analysis of site usage and changes in depression and anxiety scores.

Authors:  Helen Christensen; Kathleen M Griffiths; Ailsa Korten
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2002 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  5 in total

1.  Efficacy of technology-based interventions to increase the use of hearing protections among adolescent farmworkers.

Authors:  Khalid M Khan; Sydney S Evans; Sylvanna L Bielko; Diane S Rohlman
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Internet-Based Delivery of Evidence-Based Health Promotion Programs Among American Indian and Alaska Native Youth: A Case Study.

Authors:  Christine M Markham; Stephanie Craig Rushing; Cornelia Jessen; Gwenda Gorman; Jennifer Torres; William E Lambert; Alexander V Prokhorov; Leslie Miller; Kelly Allums-Featherston; Robert C Addy; Melissa F Peskin; Ross Shegog
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2016-11-21

3.  Gender differences in use of hearing protection devices among farm operators.

Authors:  Marjorie C McCullagh; Tanima Banerjee; James J Yang; Janice Bernick; Sonia Duffy; Richard Redman
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 0.867

4.  Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials.

Authors:  Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Theresa Aves; Beverley Shea; Janet Jull; Vivian Welch; Monica Taljaard; Manosila Yoganathan; Regina Greer-Smith; George Wells; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2017-06-05

5.  Hearing Difficulties and Tinnitus in Construction, Agricultural, Music, and Finance Industries: Contributions of Demographic, Health, and Lifestyle Factors.

Authors:  Samuel Couth; Naadia Mazlan; David R Moore; Kevin J Munro; Piers Dawes
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.