耳鼻喉科Pubmed文献追踪每日 14:00 同步
← 返回全部文献
Article record

评估一项促进年轻人听力保护行为的在线干预措施

Evaluation of an online intervention to promote hearing protective behavior in young people.

临床研究耳科IF 4.7Q1

文献信息

中文摘要

目的: 本研究评估了一种新的在线行为干预(Listening type Check)作为在线听力测试的扩展的有效性,旨在增加16-21岁人群安全的耳部和耳机使用行为,并改变其潜在心理因素。
设计: 一项采用实验设计的密集纵向研究,使用经验采样法,在完成在线听力测试加Listening type Check(干预)或仅听力测试(对照)前后两周测量聆听行为和心理因素。此外,还进行了过程评估。
研究样本: 居住在荷兰、每周使用耳机或耳塞至少一小时的16至21岁人群。参与者(n=54)平均年龄17岁,57%为男性,90%接受理论教育。
结果: 在干预前两周,参与者每周约6天使用耳机或耳塞,每天2小时,大多选择约60%的音量(0-100%量表)。每天有40分钟使用大音量(即<18岁时≥60%)。这些行为及潜在心理因素在干预后两周内没有变化。
结论: 参与一项新的在线行为干预加在线听力测试并未增加安全的耳部和耳机使用行为,也未改变潜在心理因素。参与者主要接受理论教育,且在基线时表现出相对安全的聆听行为,这可能解释了干预效果的缺失。建议对接受职业教育的参与者或其他高风险群体进行新的效果研究。

英文摘要

OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the effectiveness of a new online behavioral intervention (Listening type Check) as an extension to an online hearing test, to increase safe ear- and headphone use and change the underlying psychological factors in persons 16-21 years old.
DESIGN: An intensive longitudinal study with experimental design, using the experience sampling method, measured listening behavior and psychological factors two weeks before and after doing an online hearing test plus Listening type Check (intervention) or hearing test alone (control). Additionally, a process evaluation was performed.
STUDY SAMPLE: Persons aged 16 to 21 years living in the Netherlands and using head- or earphones for at least one hour per week. Participants (n = 54) were on average 17 years old, 57% was male, and 90% theoretically educated.
RESULTS: Participants in the two weeks pre-intervention, used ear- or headphones for about 6 days a week, 2 h a day, mostly choosing a sound volume around 60% (on 0-100% scale). A loud volume (i.e. ≥60% when <18 years) was used for 40 min a day. These behaviors and underlying psychological factors did not change in the two weeks after doing the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a new online behavioral intervention plus online hearing test did not increase safe ear- and headphone use or change underlying psychological factors. Participants were primarily theoretically educated and exhibited relatively safe listening behavior at baseline, which may explain the absence of an intervention effect. A new effect study with vocationally educated participants or other high-risk groups is recommended.