Biomedical subjects

Brenda L Eakin

Publications and source records attributed to Brenda L Eakin.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Recruitment and retention of Latino adolescents to a research study: lessons learned from a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To describe facilitators and barriers to participation and retention of Latino adolescents in a randomized clinical trial. DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants were part of a randomized clinical trial designed to reduce HIV sexual risk behavior among Latino youth. Responses from 106 randomly selected respondents from the 3-month follow-up were content analyzed. RESULTS: Four main facilitator patterns emerged: peer/family support, program incentives, commitment, and desire to help. Participation barriers included conflicts with other commitments, embarrassment, and lack of peer support. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Recruitment and retention of Latino adolescents in research studies is critical to building a research base for nursing practice.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Selecting control interventions for clinical outcome studies.

In the current research environment the design and management of control groups is becoming more complex. The selection of a control group design is dependent on study goals, presence and quality of existing interventions, urgency of the problem or issue being addressed by the intervention, and factors related to the study site. The purpose of the presentation is to identify various approaches to the design of control groups in experimental studies and to identify their strengths, limitations, and applications. A case study exemplifies the issues associated with control group selection and design.

Clinical Nursing Research↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase factory workers' use of hearing protection.

BACKGROUND: In the United States it is estimated that more than 30 million workers are exposed to harmful levels of noise on the job. When engineering or administrative controls cannot be used to reduce noise, workers should always use hearing protection devices (HPDs) when exposed to loud noise to prevent noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Previous research has shown that workers do not always use HPDs when required; therefore, it is essential that workers assume personal responsibility for preventing NIHL by increasing their use of HPDs. OBJECTIVES: This study tested the effectiveness of an individually tailored multimedia intervention to increase use of HPDs by factory workers. METHODS: A randomized controlled design was used to compare the effects of a tailored intervention (n= 446) with two other interventions (a nontailored predictor-based intervention (n= 447) and a control intervention (n= 432)) on workers' self-reported use of HPDs 6 to 18 months following the intervention. RESULTS: Only those workers receiving the tailored intervention significantly increased their use of HPDs from pretest to posttest. However, this increase significantly differed from the nontailored group but not from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Individually-tailored interventions offer promise for changing behavior. In light of the similarity between the results for the tailored intervention and the control intervention groups, further research is needed to understand barriers to HPD use and how to maximize the benefits of individually tailored interventions in this setting.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Effects of booster interventions on factory workers' use of hearing protection.

BACKGROUND: The provision of reinforcements or boosters to interventions is seen as a logical approach to enhancing or maintaining desired behavior. Empirical studies, however, have not confirmed the effectiveness of boosters nor assessed the optimum number of boosters or the timing for their delivery. OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled trial contrasted the effect of four booster conditions (a). 30 days; (b). 90 days; (c). 30 and at 90 days; and (d). no boosters of the intervention to increase the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs). METHODS: A total of 1325 factory workers completed a computerized questionnaire and were randomly assigned to one of three computer-based (tailored, nontailored predictor-based, or control) multimedia interventions designed to increase the use of hearing protection devices. After the intervention, colorful boosters specific to the type of training received were mailed to workers' homes. Posttest measures of use were administered at the time of their next annual audiogram 6 to 18 months after the intervention. RESULTS Repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant main effect for the booster (after 30 days) in the group that received tailored training (F[3442] = 2.722; p =.04). However, in the assessment of the interaction between time (pretest and posttest) and boosters (four groups), the ANOVA did not find significant differences in hearing protection device use for any of the training groups. To assess for significant differences between groups, post hoc comparisons were conducted at the pretest and posttest for the total sample and for the subsample of workers who reported using hearing protection devices less than 100% of the time needed. Sheffé contrasts by intervention group, gender, ethnicity, and hearing ability found no significant changes in the mean use of hearing protection devices for the booster groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the provision of boosters represented a considerable commitment of resources, their use was not effective in this study. However, it would be premature to eliminate boosters of interventions. Further study is needed to explore the effects of different booster types for increasing the use of hearing protection devices, and to assess carefully the effects of boosters on other health behaviors in studies with controlled designs.

Adult↗