Evaluation of the Dangerous Decibels Brazil Program in Workers Exposed to Noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Noise-induced hearing loss can be avoided by taking preventive measures. Objective To assess the effectiveness of the Brazilian version of the Dangerous Decibels ® program for noise-exposed workers, using the ecological model as an educational intervention plan. Method Non-randomized interventional study with a quantitative, experimental trial design, conducted at a meatpacking company. The participants were divided into two groups—the first one ( n = 132, divided into 6 subgroups) received the Dangerous Decibels ® Brazil educational intervention (DDBEI) adapted to workers while the second group ( n = 138, divided into 5 subgroups) received a conventional educational intervention (CEI). The interventions lasted 50 min. The Hearing Protection Assessment Questionnaire (HPA-5) was administered before and after the interventions. The five dimensions (attitude, behavior, knowledge, supports, and barriers) were compared using the Student’s t -test for paired data (<0.05). Results After both the DDBEI and CEI training, workers improved significantly in barriers, supports, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior around noise. By chance, the CEI group scored lower in all measures than the DDBEI group before training, and though both groups improved, the difference was maintained after training. Conclusion The Brazilian version of the Dangerous Decibels ® program for noise-exposed workers was effective, influencing positively the factors at different levels of the ecological model. Though the DDBEI was no more effective than the CEI, the CEI participants began at much lower levels, so the effectiveness of the DDBEI may have been underestimated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".