Randomized Trial of a Hearing Conservation Intervention for Rural Students: Long-term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".