Abstract:Objective
Need for recovery is a predictor of work stress and health problems, but its underlying factors are not yet well understood. We aimed to identify hearing-related, work-related, and personal factors influencing need for recovery in hearing-impaired employees.
Methods
We retrospectively identified hearing-impaired employees (N = 294) that were referred to the Amsterdam University Medical Center between 2004 and 2019. Routinely obtained healthcare data were used, including a survey and hearing assessm… Show more
“…Recently, there has been an increasing interest in the NFR of employees with hearing loss. In our previous study (van der Hoek-Snieders et al 2020 ), NFR and the underlying relationships with several hearing-related, work-related, and personal factors were assessed in 294 employees with hearing loss. A model was proposed of factors influencing the NFR in this population (Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Fig. 1 Model of factors influencing the Need For Recovery (NFR) of employees with hearing loss as proposed by van der Hoek-Snieders et al ( 2020 ) …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that the hypothesized model of our previous study (van der Hoek-Snieders et al 2020 ) has been constructed based on the correlations found in their study sample, and the model has not yet been validated in an independent sample. Also, this previous study was based on cross-sectional data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such research would be useful for evaluating and optimizing the aural rehabilitation strategies that are currently used. Therefore, the study objectives are: To determine whether the model of van der Hoek-Snieders et al ( 2020 ) can be confirmed in a different population regarding the factors influencing the NFR and LE in employees with hearing loss; To assess the NFR of employees with hearing loss before and after aural rehabilitation; To examine to what extent change in the NFR can be explained by changes in subjective listening effort, personal adjustments, communication strategies, auditory work demands, and self-reported hearing ability. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To determine whether the model of van der Hoek-Snieders et al ( 2020 ) can be confirmed in a different population regarding the factors influencing the NFR and LE in employees with hearing loss;…”
Objective
Compared to normally-hearing employees, those with hearing loss suffer from higher Need For Recovery (NFR) after work. The aims of this study are to assess the NFR of employees with hearing loss before and after aural rehabilitation and to examine to what extent change in the NFR can be explained by changes in subjective listening effort, personal adjustments, communication strategies, auditory work demands, and self-reported hearing ability.
Methods
We included patients who received aural rehabilitation in two audiological centers in the Netherlands because of hearing complaints in their work situation. Outcomes were measured by questionnaires at baseline and 3 month follow-up. The NFR before and after the rehabilitation was compared with a t test. Hierarchical multiple analyses were performed.
Results
In total, 60 patients (aged 22–63, working hours ≥8 per week) participated in the study, of which 50 completed the follow-up questionnaires. The NFR was significantly lower after the aural rehabilitation (M = 45.03) compared to before the aural rehabilitation (M = 51.89), t = −3.43, p < 0.01). Change in NFR could best be explained by the change in personal adjustments (R2 = 0.45, B = −1.23, p < 0.01).
Conclusion
The NFR of employees with hearing loss can be improved by aural rehabilitation, but this study shows that current practices reduce the NFR only in part of the employees. Therefore, improving current practices should be considered and evaluated, for example by applying a different combination of rehabilitation components. Especially, interventions that affect personal adjustments may be promising to further reduce the NFR in employees with hearing loss.
“…Recently, there has been an increasing interest in the NFR of employees with hearing loss. In our previous study (van der Hoek-Snieders et al 2020 ), NFR and the underlying relationships with several hearing-related, work-related, and personal factors were assessed in 294 employees with hearing loss. A model was proposed of factors influencing the NFR in this population (Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Fig. 1 Model of factors influencing the Need For Recovery (NFR) of employees with hearing loss as proposed by van der Hoek-Snieders et al ( 2020 ) …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that the hypothesized model of our previous study (van der Hoek-Snieders et al 2020 ) has been constructed based on the correlations found in their study sample, and the model has not yet been validated in an independent sample. Also, this previous study was based on cross-sectional data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such research would be useful for evaluating and optimizing the aural rehabilitation strategies that are currently used. Therefore, the study objectives are: To determine whether the model of van der Hoek-Snieders et al ( 2020 ) can be confirmed in a different population regarding the factors influencing the NFR and LE in employees with hearing loss; To assess the NFR of employees with hearing loss before and after aural rehabilitation; To examine to what extent change in the NFR can be explained by changes in subjective listening effort, personal adjustments, communication strategies, auditory work demands, and self-reported hearing ability. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To determine whether the model of van der Hoek-Snieders et al ( 2020 ) can be confirmed in a different population regarding the factors influencing the NFR and LE in employees with hearing loss;…”
Objective
Compared to normally-hearing employees, those with hearing loss suffer from higher Need For Recovery (NFR) after work. The aims of this study are to assess the NFR of employees with hearing loss before and after aural rehabilitation and to examine to what extent change in the NFR can be explained by changes in subjective listening effort, personal adjustments, communication strategies, auditory work demands, and self-reported hearing ability.
Methods
We included patients who received aural rehabilitation in two audiological centers in the Netherlands because of hearing complaints in their work situation. Outcomes were measured by questionnaires at baseline and 3 month follow-up. The NFR before and after the rehabilitation was compared with a t test. Hierarchical multiple analyses were performed.
Results
In total, 60 patients (aged 22–63, working hours ≥8 per week) participated in the study, of which 50 completed the follow-up questionnaires. The NFR was significantly lower after the aural rehabilitation (M = 45.03) compared to before the aural rehabilitation (M = 51.89), t = −3.43, p < 0.01). Change in NFR could best be explained by the change in personal adjustments (R2 = 0.45, B = −1.23, p < 0.01).
Conclusion
The NFR of employees with hearing loss can be improved by aural rehabilitation, but this study shows that current practices reduce the NFR only in part of the employees. Therefore, improving current practices should be considered and evaluated, for example by applying a different combination of rehabilitation components. Especially, interventions that affect personal adjustments may be promising to further reduce the NFR in employees with hearing loss.
ImportanceAllostatic load, the cumulative strain that results from the chronic stress response, is associated with poor health outcomes. Increased cognitive load and impaired communication associated with hearing loss could potentially be associated with higher allostatic load, but few studies to date have quantified this association.ObjectiveTo investigate if audiometric hearing loss is associated with allostatic load and evaluate if the association varies by demographic factors.Design, Setting, ParticipantsThis cross-sectional survey used nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Audiometric testing was conducted from 2003 to 2004 (ages 20-69 years) and 2009 to 2010 (70 years or older). The study was restricted to participants aged 50 years or older, and the analysis was stratified based on cycle. The data were analyzed between October 2021 and October 2022.ExposureA 4-frequency (0.5-4.0 kHz) pure tone average was calculated in the better-hearing ear and modeled continuously and categorically (&lt;25 dB hearing level [dB HL], no hearing loss; 26-40 dB HL, mild hearing loss; ≥41 dB HL, moderate or greater hearing loss).Main Outcome and MeasuresAllostatic load score (ALS) was defined using laboratory measurements of 8 biomarkers (systolic/diastolic blood pressure, body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], and total serum and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, glycohemoglobin, albumin, and C-reactive protein levels). Each biomarker was assigned a point if it was in the highest risk quartile based on statistical distribution and then summed to yield the ALS (range, 0-8). Linear regression models adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates. Sensitivity analysis included using clinical cut points for ALS and subgroup stratification.ResultsIn 1412 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [5.9] years; 293 women [51.9%]; 130 [23.0%] Hispanic, 89 [15.8%] non-Hispanic Black, and 318 [55.3%] non-Hispanic White individuals), a modest association was suggested between hearing loss and ALS (ages 50-69 years: β = 0.19 [95% CI, 0.02-0.36] per 10 dB HL; 70 years or older: β = 0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.18] per 10 dB HL) among non–hearing aid users. Results were not clearly reflected in the sensitivity analysis with clinical cut points for ALS or modeling hearing loss categorically. Sex-based stratifications identified a stronger association among male individuals (men 70 years or older: β = 0.22 [95% CI, 0.12-0.32] per 10 dB HL; women: β = 0.08 [95% CI, −0.04 to 0.20] per 10 dB HL).Conclusion and RelevanceThe study findings did not clearly support an association between hearing loss and ALS. While hearing loss has been shown to be associated with increased risk for numerous health comorbidities, its association with the chronic stress response and allostasis may be less than that of other health conditions.
Objective
Hearing screening can be used to detect hearing loss, but its value for identifying employees with work functioning difficulties is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the association between the hearing status measured with an occupational hearing-in-noise screening test, Listening Effort (LE), and Need For Recovery (NFR) in employees of a manufacturing company, and to examine whether these associations depend on the perceived noise level at the workplace.
Methods
Employees of coatings and paints manufacturing company were included. Their hearing status was assessed with an occupational hearing-in-noise screening test. An online survey was used to assess their LE, NFR, and the perceived noise level at the workplace. Responses from 143 employees were analyzed (mean age = 53 years) using hierarchical multiple regression analysis with the outcomes LE and NFR.
Results
Regression analysis—with adjustments for gender, age, educational level, health status, pace/amount of work, job variety, and work pleasure—revealed that hearing status was significantly associated with LE, but the interaction between hearing status and the perceived noise level was not. Hearing status nor the interaction between hearing status and the perceived noise level was significantly associated with NFR.
Conclusion
The results confirm that poorer hearing is associated with higher LE, but not with higher NFR. These associations were unrelated to the perceived noise level at the workplace. Therefore, the value of occupational hearing screening appears to be early identification of hearing loss in employees, but not identification of work functioning difficulties.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
