A Feasibility Study Evaluating a Community Health Worker Training Program to Support Adults With Hearing Loss in Rural Alabama Communities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) training to support adults with hearing loss who are living in rural communities of West Central and South Alabama. Knowledge and skills, in addition to the degree of confidence in performing tasks associated with the aural rehabilitation program, were assessed. METHOD: Eighteen adults who were active in their communities through nonprofit organizations, educational organizations, health facilities, or had other volunteering experiences, participated in this study. They received 3 days of initial training and were provided with opportunities to practice their skills after training. Pre- and posttraining assessments included a knowledge quiz and a confidence in skills survey. These results were compared to the findings from a control group of 16 CHWs who were administered the same assessments. A refresher training session was provided approximately 15 months after the initial training, and further assessments were administered. The Ottawa Model of Research Use was used as the framework for implementing the study. RESULTS: Statistical analyses revealed that posttraining quiz results were significantly higher than pretraining quiz outcomes, and scores from the postrefresher training quiz were significantly better than the posttraining quiz results. A significant increase in confidence in skills also was obtained after the CHWs were given opportunities to practice their skills in real-world settings. Finally, compared to the control group results, outcomes from the initial posttraining quiz were significantly better in the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes suggest that training CHWs to support adults with hearing loss in their communities is feasible and has the potential to increase access to hearing health care for those living in underserved communities. Further work is needed to understand how other professionals in the community could support the increased need for hearing health care services and related behavioral issues.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».