A pilot study to assess the safety, efficacy and ease of use of a novel hearing protection device for hospitalized neonates.

BACKGROUND: Loud noises in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) exacerbate patient cardiac and respiratory activity, disrupt sleep, and may contribute to hearing deficits, speech and language disorders, and neurodevelopmental delays among NICU graduates. AIMS: This study evaluated infant-patient tolerance and nurse ease of use of a novel frequency-selective hearing protection device, DREAMIES (NEATCap Medical, LLC). STUDY DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Fifty neonates receiving care in a Level III NICU participated in a 2-phase prospective study. In Phase 1, 25 infants (mean 36.6 wks GA) wore DREAMIES for two consecutive 30-min periods. In Phase 2, 25 infants (mean 34.8 wks GA) wore DREAMIES between care and feeding times during an 8-h Device-On period followed by an 8-h Device-Off period for three consecutive days. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subject tolerance was defined by device-related skin irritation, vital sign measurements, and behavioral state. Device fit and ease of use were also evaluated by NICU nurses. RESULTS: No skin breakdown was reported in any infant in either phase. Only transient skin erythema was observed. Periods when infants wore DREAMIES resulted in lower heart and respiratory rates and increased sleep (P < 0.001). Nurses reported little to no difficulty in applying or removing the device. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest DREAMIES are a safe, easy to use, and effective device that reduces exposure to NICU noise, and may improve cardio-respiratory activity and promote sleep among neonatal patients. Further studies are warranted to examine longer term use and potential benefits of DREAMIES for improving outcomes in infants receiving NICU care. This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.govNCT02744066.

How to Score the Sexual Experiences Survey? A Comparison of Nine Methods.

OBJECTIVE: Although assessments of sexual assault victimization and perpetration have greatly improved, current scoring methods do not fully utilize the wealth of information they provide. The present studies assessed new methods for scoring sexual assault severity using the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss et al., 2007). METHOD: In two studies of female (n = 436) and male (n = 313) non-problem drinkers who had engaged in unprotected sex within the past year, we compared three severity ranking schemes as well as three scoring methods per severity scheme for a total of nine scoring methods. New severity ranking schemes considered tactic types separately, varied combinations of assault outcomes, and accounted for multiple types and frequencies of assaults. Measures assessing convergent validity were also administered. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent (n = 340) of the women reported victimization, and 58% (n = 180) of the men reported perpetration. All severity scoring methods were strongly associated with convergent measures. CONCLUSIONS: Each scoring method is viable; however especially among samples with greater victimization/perpetration rates, there can be advantages to incorporating multiple types and frequencies of assault experiences into SES scores. Recent refinements of the SES necessitate commensurate improvements in its scoring methods in order to significantly advance the field of sexual assault assessment.