EVALUACIÓN DE UN PROTOCOLO DE PROTECCIÓN VISUAL Y AUDITIVA EN ESTUDIANTES DE ODONTOLOGÍA

Objective: to design and evaluate a protocol for eye and ear protection for dental students.Methods: a controlled communitarian trail with a sample of 83 students was done. The sample was divided in two groups (experimental and control). A survey of knowledge and an assessment of practices were appl...

Full description

Autores:
Cáceres Sierra, Lizbeth Tatiana
Pérez Sierra, Isabel Teresa
Arias Sarmiento, Diana Carolina
Aránzazu Moya, Gloria Cristina
Tipo de recurso:
Fecha de publicación:
2011
Institución:
Universidad Santo Tomás
Repositorio:
Universidad Santo Tomás
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:repository.usta.edu.co:11634/37014
Acceso en línea:
http://revistas.ustabuca.edu.co/index.php/USTASALUD_ODONTOLOGIA/article/view/1139
http://hdl.handle.net/11634/37014
Palabra clave:
Rights
License
Derechos de autor 2018 UstaSalud
Description
Summary:Objective: to design and evaluate a protocol for eye and ear protection for dental students.Methods: a controlled communitarian trail with a sample of 83 students was done. The sample was divided in two groups (experimental and control). A survey of knowledge and an assessment of practices were applied to each group; one week later, the survey was again applied to the control group. After that, the educational material was showed to the experimental group in order to establish knowledge and practice about visual and hearing protection. All the evaluations were done within a week interval. The variables were described using summary or dispersion measures. Chi2, Fisher Exact test or Student’s t test were performed in the bivariate analyses.Results: at initial assessment, control group participants showed greater knowledge that the experimental group (4.3 ± 1.5 vs. 5.2 ± 1.8 p = 0.016), while in the final evaluation the two groups had a similar score (6.2 ± 2.2 vs. 6.5 ± 2.3 p = 6.00). The final score in the experimental group was higher than the control group but there were not significant differences between them (1.9 ± 2.8 vs. 1.2 ± 3.0 p = 0.296).Conclusions: there were no statistically significant differences between the application of the manual and the improvement of practices, possibly because any student did not use hearing protection.