Assessment of Knowledge of Harmful Effects and Exposure to Recreational Music in College Students of Delhi: A Cross Sectional Exploratory Study

Abstract

Exposure to loud sounds results in a mild to profound degree of temporary or permanent hearing loss. Though occupational noise exposure remains the most commonly identified cause of noise-induced hearing loss, potentially hazardous noise can be encountered during recreational activities. Unfortunately not much attention is being given to the increasing trend of prolonged exposure to noisy environment, in the younger generation of Indians. The purpose of our study was to know the knowledge of college students about the harmful effects of loud music, prevailing practices with regard to exposure to recreational music and the subjective effects that this exposure is causing if any. Cross Sectional survey of College Students (n = 940), from randomly selected colleges of Delhi University. Majority of students listened to music using music-enabled phones; earphones were preferred and 56.6 % participants listened to music on a loud volume. Effects experienced due to loud sound were headache (58 %), inability to concentrate (48 %), and ringing sensation in the ear (41.8 %). Only 2.7 % respondents used ear protection device in loud volume settings. Twenty-three percent respondents complained of transient decreased hearing and other effects after exposure to loud music. 83.8 % knew that loud sound has harmful effect on hearing but still only 2.7 % used protection device. The survey indicates that we need to generate more such epidemiological data and follow up studies on the high risk group; so as to be able to convincingly sensitize the Indian young generation to take care of their hearing and the policy makers to have more information and education campaigns for this preventable cause of deafness.

Attitudes, Risk Behavior, and Noise Exposure among Young Adults with Hearing Problems: Identifying a Typology

“…20 The general willingness for young adults to use earplugs in music venues is low. [21][22][23] A study in the United States found that less than 10% of college students reported using hearing protection for rock concerts, discos, and sporting events. 18 Perceived individual susceptibility to hearing damage and perception of risk is likely to be one factor influencing earplug use.…”

“…Furthermore, in a study in India, less than 3% of students reported using ear protection in loud venues, despite 83% acknowledging that loud sound can have a harmful effect on hearing. 22 When exploring adolescents' perceptions of loud music and hearing protection, Vogel et al found that most adolescents often played their MP3 players at maximum volume, and although they were aware of the risks of exposure to loud music, most considered their personal vulnerability to be low. 25 A lack of awareness about the need to protect their ears from noise damage and their low levels of perceived susceptibility mean that many young people are not considering earplugs or lower volume levels as an option.…”

Effectiveness of Earplugs in Preventing Recreational Noise–Induced Hearing Loss

“…15,16 However, the general willingness to use earplugs in music venues by attendees is low. [17][18][19] This reluctance is partly owing to the lack of evidence and general knowledge on the effectiveness of earplugs in protecting hearing and the scarce availability of earplugs. 15 A recent systematic review 20 by our research group found only 1 randomized clinical trial (RCT) on the efficacy of earplugs in concert attendees.…”

Características socioeconómicas de pacientes evaluados para trasplante hepático en un centro de tercer nivel

“…Eva Almaraz-Arriaga, L en T Soc, (1) Víctor Manuel Páez-Zayas, M Gastr, (1) Liz Nicole Toapanta-Yanchapaxi, M Gastr y Hepat, (1) Alejandra Rosales-Fernández, MC, (1) Ignacio García-Juárez, M Gastr y Hepat. (1) drinter77@gmail.com (1)…”

“…Educativa, (1) Miguel Barboza-Palomino, Psic. (1) mbarbozapalomino@outlook.com.pe (1) un año en inactividad laboral. En 31% (n=12), el proveedor económico fue el paciente, y el cónyuge en 41%…”