The Experts below are selected from a list of 6072 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Susan Griest - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Formative evaluation of a multimedia self-administered computerized hearing Loss Prevention Program
International Journal of Audiology, 2014Co-Authors: Gabrielle H. Saunders, Jay Vachhani, Gino Galvez, Susan GriestAbstract:AbstractObjective: To determine which features make a computer-based hearing health education intervention effective, easy to use, and enjoyable. The study examined which features of a multimedia self-administered computerized hearing Loss Prevention Program, developed by the National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research (referred to as the NCRAR-HLPP), users liked and disliked, and the reasons why. Design: A formative evaluation was conducted in which participants completed a questionnaire to assess knowledge and attitudes towards hearing and hearing Loss Prevention, used the NCRAR-HLPP, completed the questionnaire for a second time, and were interviewed to learn their opinions about the NCRAR-HLPP. Study sample: Twenty-five male and four female Veterans recruited from the Portland VA Medical Center who were aged between 25 and 65 years. Results: Participants reported that using the NCRAR-HLPP was a positive experience. Ease of use, multimedia content, personal relevance, and use of emotion were p...
-
computer based hearing Loss Prevention education Program for veterans and military personnel
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2012Co-Authors: Gabrielle H. Saunders, Susan Griest, Robert L Folmer, Serena M Dann, Edward Porsov, Stephen A Fausti, Marjorie R LeekAbstract:INTRODUCTION According to the Veterans Benefits Administration, more than 672,000 Veterans were service-connected for hearing Loss and more than 744,000 Veterans were service-connected for tinnitus as of fiscal year 2010 [1]. Hearing Loss and tinnitus are the most prevalent disabilities experienced by Veterans who served during peacetime, Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom, World War II, and the Korean war. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided 561,212 hearing aids at an estimated cost of $196.7 million and audiological services to Veterans at a cost of $227.4 million. * Therefore, hearing Loss and tinnitus Prevention should be a priority for the VA. At least one type of hearing Loss--noise-induced hearing Loss (NIHL)--can be prevented if appropriate protective strategies are implemented. Citing the high prevalences of hearing Loss and tinnitus among Veterans, Fausti et al. concluded that Programs aimed at preventing hearing Loss should include education concerning the effects of both occupational and recreational noise exposures, as well as counseling on the hearing protection methods available to individuals at risk for NIHL [2]. Subsequently, authors Saunders and Griest worked with a video production company (Craftmaster Productions; Portland, Oregon) to implement this recommendation by developing a computer-based hearing Loss Prevention Program (HLPP) for Veterans that could be accessed by patients in VA medical clinics [3]. HEARING Loss Prevention Program The HLPP uses the constructs described in the Health Belief Model (HBM) developed by Rosenstock [4] to explain individual differences in decisions to practice particular health behaviors. To varying degrees, the HBM predicts health-related behaviors, such as prenatal care visits [5], breast cancer self-examination [6], continued enrollment in diabetes-related pharmaceutical services [7], and hepatitis B vaccination [8]. The principles outlined in the HBM were described by Folmer et al. [9, p. 12] as follows: 1. "Perceived Susceptibility: The feeling of being vulnerable to a condition and the extent to which the individual believes he/she is at risk of acquiring the condition. 2. Perceived Severity: Belief in the seriousness of the consequences incurred if [a person is] affected by the condition both medically (e.g. death, disability, pain) and socially (e.g. effects on family life, personal relations). 3. Perceived Benefits: The belief that intervention will result in positive benefits. 4. Perceived Barriers: The barriers an individual believes he/she needs to overcome in order to effectively conduct some form of intervention. This includes costs, negative side effects, social stigma, and time needed for implementation. 5. Perceived Efficacy: Belief the individual has that he/she can successfully use the intervention. 6. Cue to Action: A cue that prompts an individual to take action. This could be internal, such as symptoms of a health problem, or external, such as media communications, interpersonal communications, or information from healthcare providers." One goal of the HLPP is to increase participants' knowledge about auditory system damage that can be caused by loud sounds and methods of hearing protection, which in turn would change participants' understanding and attitudes about noise exposure and hearing protection. The ultimate goal of this, and all HLPPs, is to motivate participants to change their behaviors in noisy situations so they implement appropriate hearing protection strategies. Most Veterans were exposed to loud sounds during their military service. Additional unprotected noise exposure will contribute to hearing Loss in this population. Indeed, evidence exists that ears with prior noise damage age differently than those without significant noise exposure. Specifically, hearing Loss progresses more quickly in noise-exposed ears than in ears not exposed to noise and loud sounds cause greater damage to already-exposed ears [10]. …
-
Evaluation of a Hearing-Loss Prevention Program
Seminars in Hearing, 2008Co-Authors: Susan GriestAbstract:Hearing-Loss Prevention Programs, like other health promotion Programs, benefit from an evaluation process to determine their effectiveness. A thorough evaluation not only helps to ensure that a Program is accomplishing its goals but also can identify areas that need to be revised or strengthened. By documenting that a Program is meeting its goals and objectives, administrators can demonstrate to funding agencies that the Program is worthy of investment, both now and in the future. Evaluations also can be used to assist other Programs in development: lessons learned along the way can be documented and shared. For these reasons, evaluation is an essential part of all educational Programs. However, evaluation is not always emphasized in health promotion Programs because of the time, resources, and expertise required to carry out the process in a systematic way. This article describes the processes and procedures employed to evaluate the Dangerous Decibels hearing-Loss Prevention Program. These experiences convinced us that a thorough evaluation is not only necessary but also is key to developing a successful and sustainable Program.
-
effectiveness of dangerous decibels a school based hearing Loss Prevention Program
American Journal of Audiology, 2007Co-Authors: Susan Griest, Robert L Folmer, William Hal MartinAbstract:Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of the “Dangerous Decibels” educational Program in increasing students' knowledge and positively changing their attitudes and intended behaviors related to hea...
Verbeek Jos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Revisão sistemática sobre intervenções para promover o uso de protetores auriculares
Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM, 2007Co-Authors: El Dib, Regina Paolucci [unifesp], Atallah, Álvaro Nagib [unifesp], Andriolo, Regis Bruni [unifesp], Soares, Bernardo Garcia De Oliveira [unifesp], Verbeek JosAbstract:CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Noise-induced hearing Loss can only be prevented by eliminating or lowering noise exposure levels. When the source of the noise cannot be eliminated, workers have to rely on hearing protection equipment. The aim here was to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the wearing of hearing protection among workers exposed to noise in the workplace. DATA SOURCE: Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2005. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two studies were found. A computer-based intervention tailored to individual workers risks and lasting 30 minutes was not found to be more effective than a video providing general information for workers. A second randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of a four-year school-based hearing Loss Prevention Program among schoolchildren working on their parents farms. The intervention group was twice as likely to wear some kind of hearing protection as was the control group (which received only minimal intervention). REVIEWERS CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence does not show whether tailored interventions are more or less effective than general interventions among workers, 80% of whom already use hearing protection. Long-lasting school-based interventions may increase the use of hearing protection substantially. Better interventions to enhance the use of hearing protection need to be developed and evaluated in order to increase the Prevention of noise-induced hearing Loss among workers.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Perda auditiva induzida por ruído pode apenas ser prevenida eliminando ou diminuindo os níveis de exposição sonora. Quando a fonte do ruído não pode ser eliminada, trabalhadores devem utilizar os equipamentos de proteção auditiva. O objetivo foi sumarizar as evidências sobre efetividade das intervenções para aumentar o uso de protetores auriculares entre trabalhadores expostos a ruídos. ESTRATÉGIA DE BUSCA: Estudos randomizados foram identificados por busca eletrônica na literatura médica até 2005. Os dados foram checados duplamente e inseridos no software Review Manager software, versão 4.2.5. RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Dois estudos foram encontrados. Uma intervenção padronizada por computador em relação ao risco de um trabalhador individual durou 30 minutos e não foi mais efetiva do que um vídeo fornecendo informações gerais entre os trabalhadores. Um segundo ensaio clínico randomizado avaliou os efeitos de um Programa de prevenção auditiva de quatro anos em uma escola onde jovens trabalhavam nas fazendas de seus pais. O grupo de intervenção foi duas vezes mais provável de usar algum tipo de protetor auricular do que o grupo controle, que recebeu mínima intervenção. CONCLUSÃO DOS REVISORES: Limitada evidência não demonstrou quando as intervenções padronizadas são mais ou menos efetivas do que intervenções gerais em trabalhadores, 80% deles já utilizavam o protetor auricular. Intervenções longas em escolas podem aumentar substancialmente o uso de protetores auriculares. Melhores intervenções para aumentar o uso de Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) devem ser desenvolvidas e avaliadas com intuito de aumentar a prevenção de perda auditiva induzida por ruído em trabalhadores
-
Revisão sistemática sobre intervenções para promover o uso de protetores auriculares
'FapUNIFESP (SciELO)', 2007Co-Authors: El Dib, Regina Paolucci, Atallah, Álvaro Nagib, Andriolo, Regis Bruni, Soares, Bernardo Garcia De Oliveira, Verbeek JosAbstract:CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Noise-induced hearing Loss can only be prevented by eliminating or lowering noise exposure levels. When the source of the noise cannot be eliminated, workers have to rely on hearing protection equipment. The aim here was to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the wearing of hearing protection among workers exposed to noise in the workplace. DATA SOURCE: Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2005. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two studies were found. A computer-based intervention tailored to individual workers risks and lasting 30 minutes was not found to be more effective than a video providing general information for workers. A second randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of a four-year school-based hearing Loss Prevention Program among schoolchildren working on their parents farms. The intervention group was twice as likely to wear some kind of hearing protection as was the control group (which received only minimal intervention). REVIEWERS CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence does not show whether tailored interventions are more or less effective than general interventions among workers, 80% of whom already use hearing protection. Long-lasting school-based interventions may increase the use of hearing protection substantially. Better interventions to enhance the use of hearing protection need to be developed and evaluated in order to increase the Prevention of noise-induced hearing Loss among workers.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Perda auditiva induzida por ruído pode apenas ser prevenida eliminando ou diminuindo os níveis de exposição sonora. Quando a fonte do ruído não pode ser eliminada, trabalhadores devem utilizar os equipamentos de proteção auditiva. O objetivo foi sumarizar as evidências sobre efetividade das intervenções para aumentar o uso de protetores auriculares entre trabalhadores expostos a ruídos. ESTRATÉGIA DE BUSCA: Estudos randomizados foram identificados por busca eletrônica na literatura médica até 2005. Os dados foram checados duplamente e inseridos no software Review Manager software, versão 4.2.5. RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Dois estudos foram encontrados. Uma intervenção padronizada por computador em relação ao risco de um trabalhador individual durou 30 minutos e não foi mais efetiva do que um vídeo fornecendo informações gerais entre os trabalhadores. Um segundo ensaio clínico randomizado avaliou os efeitos de um Programa de prevenção auditiva de quatro anos em uma escola onde jovens trabalhavam nas fazendas de seus pais. O grupo de intervenção foi duas vezes mais provável de usar algum tipo de protetor auricular do que o grupo controle, que recebeu mínima intervenção. CONCLUSÃO DOS REVISORES: Limitada evidência não demonstrou quando as intervenções padronizadas são mais ou menos efetivas do que intervenções gerais em trabalhadores, 80% deles já utilizavam o protetor auricular. Intervenções longas em escolas podem aumentar substancialmente o uso de protetores auriculares. Melhores intervenções para aumentar o uso de Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) devem ser desenvolvidas e avaliadas com intuito de aumentar a prevenção de perda auditiva induzida por ruído em trabalhadores.McMaster UniversityUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Brazilian Cochrane CenterCochraneUNIFESPSciEL
Robert L Folmer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
computer based hearing Loss Prevention education Program for veterans and military personnel
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2012Co-Authors: Gabrielle H. Saunders, Susan Griest, Robert L Folmer, Serena M Dann, Edward Porsov, Stephen A Fausti, Marjorie R LeekAbstract:INTRODUCTION According to the Veterans Benefits Administration, more than 672,000 Veterans were service-connected for hearing Loss and more than 744,000 Veterans were service-connected for tinnitus as of fiscal year 2010 [1]. Hearing Loss and tinnitus are the most prevalent disabilities experienced by Veterans who served during peacetime, Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom, World War II, and the Korean war. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided 561,212 hearing aids at an estimated cost of $196.7 million and audiological services to Veterans at a cost of $227.4 million. * Therefore, hearing Loss and tinnitus Prevention should be a priority for the VA. At least one type of hearing Loss--noise-induced hearing Loss (NIHL)--can be prevented if appropriate protective strategies are implemented. Citing the high prevalences of hearing Loss and tinnitus among Veterans, Fausti et al. concluded that Programs aimed at preventing hearing Loss should include education concerning the effects of both occupational and recreational noise exposures, as well as counseling on the hearing protection methods available to individuals at risk for NIHL [2]. Subsequently, authors Saunders and Griest worked with a video production company (Craftmaster Productions; Portland, Oregon) to implement this recommendation by developing a computer-based hearing Loss Prevention Program (HLPP) for Veterans that could be accessed by patients in VA medical clinics [3]. HEARING Loss Prevention Program The HLPP uses the constructs described in the Health Belief Model (HBM) developed by Rosenstock [4] to explain individual differences in decisions to practice particular health behaviors. To varying degrees, the HBM predicts health-related behaviors, such as prenatal care visits [5], breast cancer self-examination [6], continued enrollment in diabetes-related pharmaceutical services [7], and hepatitis B vaccination [8]. The principles outlined in the HBM were described by Folmer et al. [9, p. 12] as follows: 1. "Perceived Susceptibility: The feeling of being vulnerable to a condition and the extent to which the individual believes he/she is at risk of acquiring the condition. 2. Perceived Severity: Belief in the seriousness of the consequences incurred if [a person is] affected by the condition both medically (e.g. death, disability, pain) and socially (e.g. effects on family life, personal relations). 3. Perceived Benefits: The belief that intervention will result in positive benefits. 4. Perceived Barriers: The barriers an individual believes he/she needs to overcome in order to effectively conduct some form of intervention. This includes costs, negative side effects, social stigma, and time needed for implementation. 5. Perceived Efficacy: Belief the individual has that he/she can successfully use the intervention. 6. Cue to Action: A cue that prompts an individual to take action. This could be internal, such as symptoms of a health problem, or external, such as media communications, interpersonal communications, or information from healthcare providers." One goal of the HLPP is to increase participants' knowledge about auditory system damage that can be caused by loud sounds and methods of hearing protection, which in turn would change participants' understanding and attitudes about noise exposure and hearing protection. The ultimate goal of this, and all HLPPs, is to motivate participants to change their behaviors in noisy situations so they implement appropriate hearing protection strategies. Most Veterans were exposed to loud sounds during their military service. Additional unprotected noise exposure will contribute to hearing Loss in this population. Indeed, evidence exists that ears with prior noise damage age differently than those without significant noise exposure. Specifically, hearing Loss progresses more quickly in noise-exposed ears than in ears not exposed to noise and loud sounds cause greater damage to already-exposed ears [10]. …
-
effectiveness of dangerous decibels a school based hearing Loss Prevention Program
American Journal of Audiology, 2007Co-Authors: Susan Griest, Robert L Folmer, William Hal MartinAbstract:Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of the “Dangerous Decibels” educational Program in increasing students' knowledge and positively changing their attitudes and intended behaviors related to hea...
Marjorie R Leek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
computer based hearing Loss Prevention education Program for veterans and military personnel
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2012Co-Authors: Gabrielle H. Saunders, Susan Griest, Robert L Folmer, Serena M Dann, Edward Porsov, Stephen A Fausti, Marjorie R LeekAbstract:INTRODUCTION According to the Veterans Benefits Administration, more than 672,000 Veterans were service-connected for hearing Loss and more than 744,000 Veterans were service-connected for tinnitus as of fiscal year 2010 [1]. Hearing Loss and tinnitus are the most prevalent disabilities experienced by Veterans who served during peacetime, Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom, World War II, and the Korean war. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided 561,212 hearing aids at an estimated cost of $196.7 million and audiological services to Veterans at a cost of $227.4 million. * Therefore, hearing Loss and tinnitus Prevention should be a priority for the VA. At least one type of hearing Loss--noise-induced hearing Loss (NIHL)--can be prevented if appropriate protective strategies are implemented. Citing the high prevalences of hearing Loss and tinnitus among Veterans, Fausti et al. concluded that Programs aimed at preventing hearing Loss should include education concerning the effects of both occupational and recreational noise exposures, as well as counseling on the hearing protection methods available to individuals at risk for NIHL [2]. Subsequently, authors Saunders and Griest worked with a video production company (Craftmaster Productions; Portland, Oregon) to implement this recommendation by developing a computer-based hearing Loss Prevention Program (HLPP) for Veterans that could be accessed by patients in VA medical clinics [3]. HEARING Loss Prevention Program The HLPP uses the constructs described in the Health Belief Model (HBM) developed by Rosenstock [4] to explain individual differences in decisions to practice particular health behaviors. To varying degrees, the HBM predicts health-related behaviors, such as prenatal care visits [5], breast cancer self-examination [6], continued enrollment in diabetes-related pharmaceutical services [7], and hepatitis B vaccination [8]. The principles outlined in the HBM were described by Folmer et al. [9, p. 12] as follows: 1. "Perceived Susceptibility: The feeling of being vulnerable to a condition and the extent to which the individual believes he/she is at risk of acquiring the condition. 2. Perceived Severity: Belief in the seriousness of the consequences incurred if [a person is] affected by the condition both medically (e.g. death, disability, pain) and socially (e.g. effects on family life, personal relations). 3. Perceived Benefits: The belief that intervention will result in positive benefits. 4. Perceived Barriers: The barriers an individual believes he/she needs to overcome in order to effectively conduct some form of intervention. This includes costs, negative side effects, social stigma, and time needed for implementation. 5. Perceived Efficacy: Belief the individual has that he/she can successfully use the intervention. 6. Cue to Action: A cue that prompts an individual to take action. This could be internal, such as symptoms of a health problem, or external, such as media communications, interpersonal communications, or information from healthcare providers." One goal of the HLPP is to increase participants' knowledge about auditory system damage that can be caused by loud sounds and methods of hearing protection, which in turn would change participants' understanding and attitudes about noise exposure and hearing protection. The ultimate goal of this, and all HLPPs, is to motivate participants to change their behaviors in noisy situations so they implement appropriate hearing protection strategies. Most Veterans were exposed to loud sounds during their military service. Additional unprotected noise exposure will contribute to hearing Loss in this population. Indeed, evidence exists that ears with prior noise damage age differently than those without significant noise exposure. Specifically, hearing Loss progresses more quickly in noise-exposed ears than in ears not exposed to noise and loud sounds cause greater damage to already-exposed ears [10]. …
Read Hayes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Loss Prevention Program design
Palgrave Macmillan Books, 2007Co-Authors: Read HayesAbstract:The third phase of the integrated approach to controlling retail Loss is the design of a comprehensive countermeasure Program. Because the retailer has already examined and prioritized identified risks or problems, the Loss control Program can be more focused. The required level of sophistication of the Program depends on the extent of Loss problems, leadership, mandates, and the available investment resources.
-
retail security and Loss Prevention
1991Co-Authors: Read HayesAbstract:Introduction PART 1: RETAIL RISKS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS Employee Theft Managing Employee Honesty Vendor Theft and Error Controlling Cargo Theft Shoplifting Point-of-Sale Risks Miscellaneous Risks PART 2: IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITiZING RISKS Security Surveys Data Analysis PART 3: DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING Prevention ProgramS Loss Prevention Program Design People Programs Security Systems Selecting Protection Equipment and Services Sample Protection Program Implementing the Program TESTING AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE Loss CONTROL ProgramS Auditing and Follow-Up Inventories The Future
-
retail security and Loss Prevention
1991Co-Authors: Read HayesAbstract:Introduction PART 1: RETAIL RISKS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS Employee Theft Managing Employee Honesty Vendor Theft and Error Controlling Cargo Theft Shoplifting Point-of-Sale Risks Miscellaneous Risks PART 2: IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITiZING RISKS Security Surveys Data Analysis PART 3: DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING Prevention ProgramS Loss Prevention Program Design People Programs Security Systems Selecting Protection Equipment and Services Sample Protection Program Implementing the Program TESTING AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE Loss CONTROL ProgramS Auditing and Follow-Up Inventories The Future
