Audiometric data analysis for prevention of noise‐induced hearing loss: A new approach

Abstract

Compliance with noise regulations in the past three decades has significantly reduced workplace noise exposures, particularly in the loudest industries and occupations. However, the overall effectiveness of hearing conservation programs in preventing occupational noise‐induced hearing loss remains uncertain and unquantified, while the incidence and cost of occupational hearing loss remain inexplicably high. This review/commentary critically explores this paradox by examining why the billions of annual audiograms conducted worldwide have not been aggregately utilized or applied to predict early NIHL in groups of workers or to measure the efficacy of exposure controls. Principal contributory reasons include regulation of noise as a safety standard rather than as a health standard, the inherent complexity of audiometric data, and the lack of a standardized method of interpretation for audiograms. The unsuccessful history of efforts to develop and adopt methods and tools to analyze aggregate audiometric data is described. Consequently, the Standard Threshold Shift—a regulatorily defined, lagging indicator of individual, irreversible hearing loss that is not an effective preventive metric—remains the de facto standard of care. A population‐based Best Practices approach is proposed to leverage the raw audiometric data already available and turn it into actionable data for effective secondary prevention to strategically manage and reduce occupational hearing loss risk. This approach entails statistical methods and information management tools necessary to transform audiometry from a compliance‐driven, individual screening test with limited preventive capability into a medical surveillance process directly linked to aggregate corrective and prevention actions.

Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss among Workers at a Hammer Forge Company

“…Before analysis, NIOSH audiometric quality assurance screening guidelines were used to identify and remove incomplete audiograms or those with audiometric patterns indicating hearing loss was likely a result of inaccurate audiometric thresholds or non-occupational factors such as indications of excessive background in the audiometric test room, large inter-aural differences in hearing thresholds, and large adjacent-frequency differences. 14 Audiometric screening based on these guidelines has been used in previous NIOSH research. 15 16 After screening, the dataset had 4,750 audiograms from 483 workers.…”

Analisis Kebisingan dan Pencahayaan pada Area Proyek Pembanguan Gedung sebagai Faktor Risiko Kesehatan pada Pekerja

“…Gangguan pendengaran akibat kebisingan adalah penyakit akibat kerja yang paling sering dilaporkan dalam banyak penelitian 2,3 . World Health Organization (WHO) memperkirakan bahwa sekitar 45 juta orang menderita gangguan pendengaran ringan hingga berat akibat paparan kebisingan di tempat kerja 4 .…”

A Scoping Review: Identifying Targeted Intervention Strategies for Workers with Occupational Hearing Loss

“…This cost represents 1.5 billion individuals who have some degree of hearing loss, of which approximately 430 million people have moderate to significant hearing loss [1]. In terms of psychosocial costs, hearing loss has contributed to incidents through stress, production losses and miscommunication [2,3], with the estimated cost to the global economy being more than $1 trillion USD in lost revenue [1]. Individuals suffering from hearing loss may also suffer from irritability, be susceptible to depression and at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease, hypertension, fatigue, and diabetes [4,5].…”