Hearing loss and perceptions of noise in the workplace among rural Australians

Williams, Warwick; Purdy, Suzanne C.; Murray, Narelle; LePage, Eric L.; Challinor, Kathy

doi:10.1111/j.1440-1854.2004.00571.x

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study are consistent with other published research that reports that farmers are at risk for hearing loss due to the prevalence of noise (Beckett et al, 2000; Hwang et al, 2001; Williams et al, 2004). The OSHA noise standard requires that whenever workers are exposed to noise levels that may equal or exceed 85 decibels or a dose of 50%, employers shall develop and implement hearing protection programs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Additional variables that increase farmers' risk for hearing loss include exposures to toxic chemicals and recreational noise, aging, disease, use of ototoxic drugs, and trauma. Persons who work on farms have a higher prevalence of hearing loss than the general population (Beckett et al, 2000; Hwang et al, 2001; Williams, Purdy, Murray, LePage, & Challino, 2004). Hearing loss caused by noise exposure is progressive, painless, and permanent, and the insidious nature of the problem leads to minimization of susceptibility and severity by those exposed.…”

Section: Background and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Pilot Study to Prevent Hearing Loss in Farmers

Gates

Jones

2007

Public Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Determine the feasibility and outcome of a pilot program to increase farm workers' use of hearing protection when performing activities with high noise exposure. Design: The study was a quasi‐experimental study. Sample: Eight intervention farmers and 17 comparison farmers participated in the study. Measures: Before and after the intervention, farmers completed a survey to identify their frequency of use of hearing protection, and their beliefs about hearing loss and use of hearing protection. Intervention: The intervention consisted of noise assessments, educational sessions, mailed reminders with brochures, and placement of hearing protection on the farm. Results: The intervention was effective in increasing the use of hearing protection 1 and 2 months after the implementation of the program. Conclusions: Hearing loss is a serious problem with farmers, and yet many farmers neglect to protect their hearing with the use of protection. The pilot study findings indicate that efforts to increase the use of hearing protection by farmers can be effective.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Background and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

A Pilot Study to Prevent Hearing Loss in Farmers

Gates

Jones

2007

Public Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research showing that those who felt they were exposed to high levels of noise wore hearing protection more often supports this idea. [18] This implies that workers' attitudes to noise may be influenced by the perspective from which they perceive it. For example, a worker who views the noise in his factory as being average for his industry may not be careful around it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing protection use in manufacturing workers: A qualitative study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational noise is a significant contributor to disabling hearing loss worldwide. Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) has resulted in huge human and economic consequences costing New Zealand approximately $53M annually and rising. A high proportion of hearing loss claims are made by workers in the manufacturing sector. Hearing protection devices (HPDs) are used together with engineering and administrative controls to minimize noise exposure and to prevent hearing loss. Unfortunately, inconsistent and improper use of HPDs has hindered efforts to prevent NIHL. The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that influence the use of HPDs amongst a group of manufacturing workers in New Zealand. A purposive sample of twenty-five workers was recruited to take part in semi-structured interviews. The open-ended questions were aimed at exploring the participants' knowledge, attitude, beliefs, and behavior towards noise and HPDs. The data were analyzed using conventional content analysis and key themes emerged in relation to HPD use. Themes that emerged from the interviews either supported good hearing protection behavior or acted as barriers against it. Five major themes, (perception of noise, hearing preservation, reluctance to use HPDs, workplace interaction, and value of hearing) and sub-themes described various factors that influence hearing protection use. Both personal and environmental factors influence the use of HPDs. Based on this study, personal and environmental factors need to be targeted for further research using ecological models to develop interventions that promote HPD use amongst workers.

show abstract

“…10 In 1990-1993, the age-standardised death rate for adult male farmers was 39% greater than for the working-age male population. 11 Circulatory disease, neoplasms and injury are excessively higher than for the Australian male population.…”

Section: What This Paper Addsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Impact of rurality on environmental determinants and hazards

Veitch

2009

Australian J Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The original of this paper was prepared as invited pre-reading for the Inaugural Rural Health Symposium held in Brisbane in July 2008 under the theme "The impact of 'rurality'", sub-theme (a) Environmental determinants. The natural environment shapes human activity, both economically and socially. It also directly and indirectly influences health and well-being. People in rural and remote areas are more directly exposed to the natural environment than their urban counterparts. The built environment is largely a product of economic activity; thus, the built environment in rural areas tends to reflect the predominant primary industry/ies. The rural built environment presents many potential hazards and risks to health and well-being, particularly for those involved in the primary industries, which are either not present in urban areas, or are present on smaller or more contained scales. The natural and built environments also influence individuals' attitudes and behaviours, both positively and negatively. The environmental determinants of rural health, therefore, can be considered in terms of the natural environment, the built environment and individuals' responses to environmental influences. This paper raises some of the common environmental determinants of rural health and well-being and briefly touches on what these mean for rural health service delivery.

show abstract

Hearing loss and perceptions of noise in the workplace among rural Australians

Abstract: There is a need for specific training to ensure that rural workers have skills to take more positive action in reducing noise exposure at work.

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

A Pilot Study to Prevent Hearing Loss in Farmers

A Pilot Study to Prevent Hearing Loss in Farmers

Hearing protection use in manufacturing workers: A qualitative study

Impact of rurality on environmental determinants and hazards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About