Prospective, randomized controlled assessment of the short‐ and long‐term efficacy of a hearing conservation education program in Canadian elementary school children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a hearing conservation program in changing acoustic risk-taking and hearing conservation behaviors in elementary school children. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, mixed design controlled study. METHODS: Participants were grade-six students from 16 Vancouver School Board schools. Differences between the intervention and control group responses on a behavioral questionnaire were measured at baseline, and then at 2 weeks and 6 months after administration of a hearing conservation program (Sound Sense™). RESULTS: The intervention resulted in significant interactions for improved earplug use at dances (P = .019), rock concerts (P = .001), with percussion musical instruments (P = .002), and electric guitars (P = .028) at 2 weeks postintervention relative to baseline. Improvements in children's earplug use at dances (P = .041), rock concerts (P = .0024), and with power lawn mowers (P = .043) at 6 months postintervention relative to baseline were also observed. Behavior in the intervention group compared to control group improved in earplug use with any "other noises" at 2 weeks (P = .001), and 6 months (P = .022) relative to baseline. There was a tendency in the intervention group to reduce the duration of use of personal music devices at 2 weeks and 6 months after the hearing conservation program, which was nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: The Sound Sense™ hearing conservation program improved earplug use practices in elementary school children in the short and long term. The development, implementation and evaluation of a community-based health promotion project around hearing loss can serve as a tremendous opportunity for students to develop their knowledge and skills in health advocacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".