Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss

Tikka, Christina; Verbeek, Jos; Kateman, Erik; Morata, Thaís C.; Dreschler, Wouter A.; Ferrite, Sílvia

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006396.pub4

Cited by 98 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…NIHL is related to multiple factors. In addition to occupational noise, other factors (such as organic solvent [4], high-temperature [5], no use of hearing protection device [6], alcohol [7], genes [8], comorbidity [9], etc.) may be independent factors or have a synergistic effect with noise to increase the risk of NIHL.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between Smoking and Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Rong

Wang

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to synthesize the results of previously published observational studies through meta-analysis to clarify the association between smoking and noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). We searched several databases as of October 2019. Based on the results of heterogeneity analysis (Q statistic and I2 statistic), a fixed effect model (for no heterogeneity; Q test P > 0.1 and I2 ≤ 50%) or a random effects model (for heterogeneity) was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs). We explored the potential dose-response relationship between smoking and NIHL as well. In total, 27 studies involving 30,465 participants were included. Compared with non-smokers, the pooled OR of current smokers was 2.05 (95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.71–2.46), and of former smokers was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.05–1.18). We found a curve linear association between an increasing number of pack-years (packages/day × smoking years) and risk of NIHL. The dose-response meta-analysis suggested that when the number of pack-years was less than fifteen, the risk of NIHL was increasing, and the highest combined OR was 5.25 (95% CI: 2.30–11.96) for pack-years of fifteen. After fifteen pack-years, the pooled OR had a slow decline. Our study indicated that smoking is a risk factor for NIHL. Current smokers have a higher risk than former smokers, and there is a positive dose-response relationship between smoking and NIHL.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between Smoking and Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Rong

Wang

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There's a significant distance between the theory (the guidance given) and the practice (that which is done). Authors state that implementing a more rigid legislation in companies may reduce the levels of noise in the work stations 27 . Some health professionals, specifically those of occupational medicine, speechlanguage pathology and audiology, are acquainted with important elements of the HCP and believe to be developing the program.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Logical operating model of the hearing conservation program for workers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: to validate the contents of an operating model of hearing conservation programs. Methods: this is a documentary and methodological research, in which the operating model was evaluated by ten experts in audiology, through the analysis of the activities developed in the implementation of the hearing conservation program. The components were analyzed according to the formula that determines the content validation index by item, and the operational logical model as a whole, according to the content validation formula by scale level. The items were considered valid when agreement among participants reached more than 80%. Results: the operating model was structured in 4 (four) dimensions, namely: (1) Management; (2) Environmental Control; (3) Attention to Hearing Health; (4) Evaluation of Efficacy and Efficiency. Each dimension corresponds to a set of activities (referred to as processes), and their respective results expected. For the structure of the program, considering its set of dimensions, material, organizational and human resources were listed. Conclusion: the proposed operating model and its components proved to be valid in their relevance and comprehensibility, offering support and applicability in evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the program.

show abstract

“…When engineering and administrative measures are not feasible or do not reduce noise to safe levels, HPDs such as earplugs and ear muffs become necessary—as does sufficient training for proper use of HPDs. A meta‐analysis of HPD training programs demonstrated that noise attenuation was 8.5 dB better in workers using HPD that received training than those that did not . Within Mining and OGE, HPDs are usually the first worker protection employed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of hearing loss among noise‐exposed workers within the Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction sectors, 2006‐2015

Lawson

Masterson

Azman

2019

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of hearing loss (HL) among noise-exposed US workers within the Mining, and Oil and Gas Extraction (OGE) sectors. Methods: Audiograms of 1.9 million workers across all industries (including 9389 in Mining and 1076 in OGE) from 2006 to 2015 were examined. Prevalence and adjusted risk as compared to a reference industry (Couriers and Messengers) were estimated for all industries combined and the Mining and OGE sectors and subsectors.Results: The prevalences of HL in Mining and OGE were 24% and 14%, respectively, compared with 16% for all industries combined. Many Mining and one OGE subsector exceeded these prevalences and most had an adjusted risk (prevalence ratio) significantly greater than the reference industry. Some subsectors, particularly in OGE, could not be examined due to low sample size. The prevalences in Construction Sand and Gravel Mining and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction were 36% and 28%, respectively. Workers within Support Activities for Coal Mining had double the risk of HL than workers in the reference industry.Conclusions: The many subsectors identified with high prevalences and/or worker risks for HL well above risks in the reference industry need critical attention to conserve worker hearing and maintain worker quality of life. Administrative and engineering controls can reduce worker hazardous noise exposures. Noise and ototoxic chemical exposure information is needed for many subsectors, as is audiometric testing results for OGE workers. Additional research is also needed to further characterize exposures and improve hearing conservation measures.

show abstract

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss

Cited by 98 publications

References 95 publications

Association between Smoking and Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Association between Smoking and Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Logical operating model of the hearing conservation program for workers

Prevalence of hearing loss among noise‐exposed workers within the Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction sectors, 2006‐2015

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About