Search

Background: Caring for a child with intellectual disability (ID) has been associated with increased social and psychological burdens. Diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty may enhance emotional stress in families. Method: The present authors assessed the motivations, expectations, mental health, physical health and the quality of life of 194 parents whose children with intellectual disability were undergoing a genetic diagnostic workup. Results: Most parents considered a diagnosis highly relevant for their own emotional relief, their child's therapies and education, or family planning. Parental mental health was significantly lower compared with the normative sample, but physical health was not different. The severity of the child's intellectual disability correlated negatively with their parents' mental and physical health, quality of life, and positively with parental anxiety. Conclusion: Healthcare providers should be aware of the disadvantages facing families with intellectually disabled children. Receiving practical, social and psychological support as well as genetic testing might be particularly relevant for families with severely disabled children.

Hearing protection device (HPD) fit-testing is a recommended best practice for hearing conservation programs as it yields a metric of the amount of attenuation an individual achieves with an HPD. This metric, the personal attenuation rating (PAR), provides hearing health care, safety, and occupational health personnel the data needed to select the optimal hearing protection for the occupational environment in which the HPD will be worn. Although commercial-off-the-shelf equipment allows the professional to complete HPD fit tests in the field, a standard test methodology does not exist across HPD fit-test systems. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of attenuation obtained using the "gold standard" laboratory test (i.e., real-ear attenuation at threshold [REAT]) and three commercially available HPD fit-test systems (i.e., Benson Computer Controlled Fit Test System [CCF-200] with narrowband noise stimuli, Benson CCF-200 with pure tone stimuli, and Michael and Associates FitCheck Solo). A total of 57 adults, aged 18 to 63, were enrolled in the study and tested up to seven earplugs each across all fit-test systems. Once fitted by a trained member of the research team, earplugs remained in the ear throughout testing across test systems. Results revealed a statistically significant difference in measured group noise attenuation between the laboratory and field HPD fit-test systems (p <.0001). The mean attenuation was statistically significantly different (Benson CCF-200 narrowband noise was +3.1 dB, Benson CCF-200 pure tone was +2.1 dB, and Michael and Associates FitCheck Solo was +2.5 dB) from the control laboratory method. However, the mean attenuation values across the three experimental HPD fit-test systems did not reach statistical significance and were within 1.0 dB of one another. These findings imply consistency across the evaluated HPD fit-test systems and agree with the control REAT test method. Therefore, the use of each is acceptable for obtaining individual PARs outside of a laboratory environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To investigate the change in hearing and perceived comfort over 1 year related to using an active hearing protection device (HPD) among United States Marine Corps (USMC) personnel routinely exposed to hazardous noise. Methods USMC Weapons Instructors (n = 127) were issued an active earmuff that met military standards and was compatible with other protective equipment. These participants completed pre- and post-hearing tests and comfort surveys. A control cohort (n = 94) was also included to compare individual changes in high-frequency pure tone average (HF-PTA) over 1 year. Results The control group's HF-PTA was 3 dB worse than the intervention group after only 1 year. Survey responses revealed perceived improvements in the ability to hear and understand, situational awareness, and safety. Conclusions Active HPDs can reduce hearing loss and improve hearing-related occupational tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this fit-testing study in the field was to systematically compare three Hearing Protection Device (HPD) fit-training methods and determine whether they differ in the acquisition of HPD fitting skill and resulting amount of earplug attenuation. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive HPD fit-training using one of three training methods: current, experiential HPD (eHPD), and integrated. Personal Attenuation Ratings (PARs) were acquired via HPD fit-testing and used to verify attenuations pre- and post-training. US Marine training recruits (n = 341) identified via HPD fit-testing for remedial HPD fit-training and assigned to three cohorts. The post-training HPD fit-test passing rate differed by training method, with pass rates ranging from 50% (current) to nearly 92% (eHPD). The difference between group delta PAR values were significantly higher (>9 dB) in both the eHPD and integrated methods compared to the current method. The HPD fit-training methods that teach "what right feels like" (eHPD and integrated) provided a greater number of trainees with the skill to achieve noise attenuation values required for impulse noise exposures encountered during basic training. The attenuation achieved by those methods was significantly greater than the current training method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]