OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this fit-testing study in the field was to systematically compare three Hearing Protection Device (HPD) fit-training methods and determine whether they differ in the acquisition of HPD fitting skill and resulting amount of earplug attenuation. DESIGN: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive HPD fit-training using one of three training methods: current, experiential HPD (eHPD), and integrated. Personal Attenuation Ratings (PARs) were acquired via HPD fit-testing and used to verify attenuations pre- and post-training. STUDY SAMPLE: US Marine training recruits (n = 341) identified via HPD fit-testing for remedial HPD fit-training and assigned to three cohorts. RESULTS: The post-training HPD fit-test passing rate differed by training method, with pass rates ranging from 50% (current) to nearly 92% (eHPD). The difference between group delta PAR values were significantly higher (>9 dB) in both the eHPD and integrated methods compared to the current method. CONCLUSION: The HPD fit-training methods that teach "what right feels like" (eHPD and integrated) provided a greater number of trainees with the skill to achieve noise attenuation values required for impulse noise exposures encountered during basic training. The attenuation achieved by those methods was significantly greater than the current training method.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this fit-testing study in the field was to systematically compare three Hearing Protection Device (HPD) fit-training methods and determine whether they differ in the acquisition of HPD fitting skill and resulting amount of earplug attenuation. DESIGN: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive HPD fit-training using one of three training methods: current, experiential HPD (eHPD), and integrated. Personal Attenuation Ratings (PARs) were acquired via HPD fit-testing and used to verify attenuations pre- and post-training. STUDY SAMPLE: US Marine training recruits (n = 341) identified via HPD fit-testing for remedial HPD fit-training and assigned to three cohorts. RESULTS: The post-training HPD fit-test passing rate differed by training method, with pass rates ranging from 50% (current) to nearly 92% (eHPD). The difference between group delta PAR values were significantly higher (>9 dB) in both the eHPD and integrated methods compared to the current method. CONCLUSION: The HPD fit-training methods that teach "what right feels like" (eHPD and integrated) provided a greater number of trainees with the skill to achieve noise attenuation values required for impulse noise exposures encountered during basic training. The attenuation achieved by those methods was significantly greater than the current training method.
Entities:
Keywords:
Personal Attenuation Rating (PAR); attenuation; earplugs; fit-testing; hearing conservation; hearing protection device (HPD); training