Trial reportLa Medicina del lavoro2025
Enhancing Hearing Protection: Evaluating Innovative Training Modalities for Optimal Fitting Outcomes.
Trial report in La Medicina del lavoro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring the effectiveness of training in properly fitting hearing protection devices (HPDs) is crucial, as it directly influences their attenuation. We assessed an earplug's personal attenuation ratings (PAR) following various intervention modalities.
methodsThe sample consisted of 52 adults without experience using hearing protection devices (HPD). The Personal Attenuation Rating (PAR) was evaluated through real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) and microphone-in real-ear (MIRE) measurements after participants fitted the HPD as they saw fit. Participants were then randomly assigned to groups and given instructions on HPD fitting as follows: (G1) individual in-person demonstration; (G2) package reading; (G3) video; (G4) no intervention. PAR was subsequently reassessed. Data analysis was conducted using ANOVA and the Fisher Exact test.
resultsPre-intervention assessments showed no significant differences between the groups using either method. After training, G1, G2, and G3 significantly increased the PAR compared to G4, through both processes. The comparison of PAR post and pre-intervention revealed significant differences for G1, G2, and G3 (REAT) as well as for G1 and G3 (MIRE), in contrast to G4. Regarding "pass" and "fail" outcomes through MIRE, G1, G2, and G3 had more "pass" results after the intervention, compared to G4.
conclusionsIntervention, regardless of modality, effectively improved correct earplug HPD fitting, evidenced by increased PAR and higher rates of individuals achieving sufficient attenuation. Individual in-person demonstrations and video instructions proved to be the most effective training modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.