Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

Protocol of a randomized controlled trial of hearing protection interventions for farm operators

Authors: Marjorie C McCullagh, David L Ronis

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Hearing loss and tinnitus are prevalent in America, and noise-induced hearing loss is a leading cause of hearing loss. Noise-induced hearing loss has negative impact on quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, social life, and employment. In addition, noise-induced hearing loss results in heavy social and economic burdens on families and communities from all ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Farmers are a group that is particularly high risk for noise-induced hearing loss, and is underserved by programs designed to limit that risk. They are among the most noise-exposed group of workers, and experience the second highest prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss among all occupational categories. In agriculture, 1.5 million workers (43.3%) report exposure to hazardous noise. Although use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) would protect them from noise-induced hearing loss, use among farmers is low.

Methods/Design

The purpose of this project is to compare the effectiveness of several approaches to influencing hearing protector use. Approaches include: a) an interactive, predictors-based intervention delivered via the Internet; b) a static informational web site; and c) a mailed sampler of hearing protectors. The goals are to further develop an intervention to promote farmers’ use of HPDs, and compare the effectiveness of the interventions delivered in various combinations. Participants will include 701 farmers. Sites will be affiliates of a major farmer organization. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A random intercept mixed model will be used to explore the fixed effects of the three NIHL prevention interventions over time while adjusting for age and gender. This project will involve a partnership between the University of Michigan and a major farmer organization to accomplish project aims.

Discussion

Results of this study will be used to inform future research-to-practice studies to increase hearing protector use. Increased use of hearing protectors is expected to reduce rates of noise-induced hearing loss and other negative effects of high noise exposure, and improve quality of life in this high-risk and underserved group.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01454895 Registered 14 October, 2011.
Literature
1.
Tak S, Calvert GM. Hearing difficulty attributable to employment by industry and occupation: an analysis of the National Health Interview Survey - United States, 1997 to 2003. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50(1):46–56.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Conway H, Simmons J, Talbert T. The purposes of occupational medical surveillance in US industry and related health findings. J Occup Med. 1993;35(7):670–86.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Thelin JW, Joseph DJ, Davis WE, Baker DE, Hosokawa MC. High-frequency hearing loss in male farmers of Missouri. Public Health Rep. 1983;98(3):268–73.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Gomez MJ, Hwang SA, Sobotova L, Stark AD, May JJ. A comparison of self-reported hearing loss and audiometry in a cohort of New York farmers. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44(6):1201–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Stewart M, Scherer J, Lehman ME. Perceived effects of high frequency hearing loss in a farming population. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14:100–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Marvel ME, Pratt DS, Marvel LH, Regan M, May JJ. Occupational hearing loss in New York dairy farmers. Am J Ind Med. 1991;20(4):517–31.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Beckett WS, Chamberlain D, Hallman E, May J, Hwang SA, Gomez M, et al. Hearing conservation for farmers: source apportionment of occupational and environmental factors contributing to hearing loss. J Occup Environ Med. 2000;42:806–13.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Rabinowitz PM, Sircar KD, Tarabar S, Galusha D, Slade MD. Hearing loss in migrant agricultural workers. J Agromed. 2005;10(4):9–17.CrossRef
9.
Morata TCD,DE. Occupational hearing loss. Occup Med. 1995;10(3):495–689.
10.
Hetu R, Getty L, Quoc HT. Impact of occupational hearing loss on the lives of workers. Occup Med. 1995;10(3):495–512.PubMed
11.
Choi SW, Peek-Asa C, Sprince NL, Rautiainen RH, Donham KJ, Flamme GA, et al. Hearing loss as a risk factor for agricultural injuries. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(4):293–301.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
14.
Murphy D. Safety and health for production agriculture. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers; 1992.
15.
Sataloff RT, Sataloff J. Occupational hearing loss. New York: Marcel Deckker; 1993.
16.
Savell JF, Toothman EH. Group mean hearing threshold changes in a noise-exposed industrial population using personal hearing protectors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1987;48(1):23–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hong OS, Chen SP, Conrad KM. Noise induced hearing loss among male airport workers in Korea. AAOHN J. 1998;46(2):67–75.PubMed
18.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2020. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
19.
20.
21.
Franks JR, Stephenson M, Merry CJ. Preventing occupational hearing loss: a practical guide. Bethesda, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1996.
22.
NIOSH. Preventing occupational hearing loss: A practical guide (Publication No. 96-110). Washington, DC: NIOSH; 1996.
23.
Suter A. Best practices in hearing loss prevention: The handicap resulting from noise-induced hearing impairment. Washington, D.C: NIOSH; 2001.
24.
McCullagh MC, Lusk SL, Ronis DL. Factors influencing use of hearing protection among farmers: a test of the Pender Health Promotion Model. Nurs Res. 2002;51(1):33–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
McCullagh MC, Ronis DL, Lusk SL. Predictors of use of hearing protection among a representative sample of farmers. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(6):528–38.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Gates DM, Jones MS. A pilot study to prevent hearing loss in farmers. Public Health Nurs. 2007;24(6):547–53.CrossRefPubMed
27.
van den Berg MH, Schoones JW, Vliet Vlieland TP. Internet-based physical activity interventions: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(3):e26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Joseph CLM, Peterson EL, Havstad S, Johnson CC, Hoerauf S, Stringer S, et al. Web-based, tailored asthma management program for urban African-American high school students. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(9):888–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Strecher VJ, McClure J, Alexander G, Nair V, Konkel JM, Greene S, et al. Web-based smoking cessation components and tailoring depth: results of a randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(5):373–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Alexander GL, McClure J, Calvi J. A randomized clinical trial evaluating online interventions to improve fruit and vegetable consumption. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(2):319–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Derry HA, McClure J, Stark A et al. Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. In press.
32.
Lusk SL, Ronis DL, Hogan MM. Test of the health promotion model as a causal model of construction workers’ use of hearing protection. Nurs Res Health. 1997;20:183–94.CrossRef
33.
Lusk SL, Ronis DL, Kerr MJ, Atwood JR. Test of the Health Promotion Model as a causal model of workers’ use of hearing protection. Nurs Res. 1994;43(3):151–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kerr MJ, Lusk SL, Ronis DL. Explaining Mexican American workers’ hearing protection use with the health promotion model. Nurs Res. 2002;51(2):100–9.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Wadud E, Kreuter M, Clarkson S. Risk perception, beliefs about prevention, and preventive behaviors of farm workers. J Agric Saf Health. 1998;4:15–24.CrossRef
36.
37.
Melamed S, Bruhis S. The effects of chronic industrial noise exposure on urinary cortisol, fatigue and irritability: a controlled field experiment. J Occup Environ Med. 1996;38:252–6.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
StataCorp. Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2013.
40.
41.
42.
Ray JJ. The reliability of short social desirability scales. J Soc Psychol. 1984;123:133–4.CrossRef
43.
Hintze JL. SPSS 2008 User’s Guide. Kaysville, Utah: SPSS, Inc; 2008.
Metadata
Title
Protocol of a randomized controlled trial of hearing protection interventions for farm operators
Authors
Marjorie C McCullagh
David L Ronis
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1743-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Prevalence of tuberculosis and treatment outcome among university students in Northwest Ethiopia: a retrospective study

Research article

Community-based navigators for tobacco cessation treatment: a proof-of-concept pilot study among low-income smokers

Research article

Responses and relationship dynamics of men and their spouses during active surveillance for prostate cancer: health literacy as an inquiry framework

Study protocol

Comparing the effects of sun exposure and vitamin D supplementation on vitamin D insufficiency, and immune and cardio-metabolic function: the Sun Exposure and Vitamin D Supplementation (SEDS) Study

Research article

Protective practices against zoonotic infections among rural and slum communities from South Central Chile

Study protocol

Study protocol: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of a healthy lifestyle intervention for people attending residential substance abuse treatment