Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30466413›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2018

Efficacy of hearing conservation education programs for youth and young adults: a systematic review.

Khalid M Khan, Sylvanna L Bielko, Marjorie C McCullagh

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Health Education Intervention on Hearing Health Risk Behaviors in College Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Design and testing of a personalized noise monitoring system.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Khalid M KhanDepartment of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington, 1025 E Seventh Street, Room 025E, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. kmkhan@indiana.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5513-0337
Sylvanna L BielkoDepartment of Environmental Science, Public Health, and Sustainable Development, School of Applied and Natural Sciences, Taylor University, Upland, IN, USA.
Marjorie C McCullaghDepartment of Systems, Populations and Leadership, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

University of Michigan ERC-supplement (TRT)T42OH008455 · OH · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI NEITZEL, RICHARD L · 2005 to 2025
$32.3M
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention T42OH008455NIOSH CDC HHS T42 OH008455
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany youth and young adults experience high noise exposure compounded by lack of access to hearing health education. Although the need for hearing health education programs is evident, the efficacy of these programs for youth is unclear. We evaluated the literature for efficacy of various hearing conservation programs aimed at youth and young adults, and analyzed their strengths and limitations.

methodsStudies reporting results of hearing conservation or hearing loss prevention programs with youth or young adults, using randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, experimental design, or qualitative research, and published in peer-reviewed journals in English between 2001 and 2018 were included. Studies were found through searches of selected literature databases (i.e., PubMed, Google Scholar, NIOSH Toxline, and Scopus). Identified publications were assessed for relevance, and data were extracted from the studies deemed relevant.

resultsA total of 10 studies were included. Very little evidence of efficacy of hearing conservation educational programs was found in these studies. Several methodological limitations including lack of rigorous study designs, inadequate power, and application of inappropriate statistical analysis were noted. Some use of technology in programs (e.g., smartphone apps, mobile phone text messages, and computers) was observed, but conclusions as to the effectiveness of these tools were limited by the small number of studies and small sample sizes.

conclusionsThe number of studies of educational hearing conservation programs for youth and young adults was low. The efficacy of the program was not reported in most studies, and it is difficult to draw public health conclusions from these studies due to their multiple methodological limitations. While use of technology in hearing conservation educational programs offers promise, its effectiveness has not been studied.

Indexed as

AdolescentHealth EducationHearing Loss, Noise-InducedHumansProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoung AdultEducational interventionHearing conservationRural and agricultural communitiesSystematic reviewTechnologyYoung adultsYouth

Identifiers

PMID30466413
PMCPMC6249850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.