Noise exposure, noise annoyance, use of hearing protection devices and distress among blue-collar workers.

Melamed, Samuel; Rabinowitz, Stanley; Green, Manfred S.

doi:10.5271/sjweh.1395

Cited by 34 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Chavalitsakulchai (1989) found that only 20% of the workers used HPDs in the presence of high noise. Other studies also found low compliance (30% to 50%) in HPD use (Abel, 1985;Lusk, 1995;Melamed, 1994). In this study, continuous HPD use showed a clear preservative effect, as reflected by the significantly lower prevalence of hearing loss in the continuous HPD users.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Noise Induced Hearing Loss

Hong

Chen²,

Conrad³

1998

AAOHN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of this study of airport workers were to a) determine the prevalence and symptoms of hearing loss, and b) identify compliance in using hearing protective devices (HPDs) and its relationship with hearing loss. This cross sectional epidemiological study was conducted with 255 noise exposed and 195 non-noise exposed, full time, male workers at a large metropolitan airport in Seoul, Korea. The three measures used were the self administered Occupational Hearing Questionnaire (OHQ), an audiological assessment, and a record review of baseline hearing and noise levels of locations in which the employee worked. The results showed a significant difference in prevalence of hearing loss (more than 25dB) between the noise and the non-noise exposed groups (p < .05). About 60.8% of noise exposed workers reported continuous use of the HPDs. The continuous HPD users had significantly lower rates of hearing

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Noise Induced Hearing Loss

Hong

Chen²,

Conrad³

1998

AAOHN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Melarned et a1 (1994) in a study on 2497 male blue collar workers reported 42.6% (150 out of 352) HPD use in those exposed to noise levels greater than or equal to 85 &(A). Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that HPD use related not only to exposure level (OR 2.94,95% CI 2.58-3.3), but even more so to high noise annoyance (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.77-3.29) (Melamed et al, 1994).…”

Section: Hpd Use In Two Millsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of noise levels in Alberta sawmills

Koehncke

Taylor

et al. 2003

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNoise exposure in the sawmill industry is an area of concern. This study documents the level of noise exposure in nine sawmills in the province of Alberta, Canada.MethodsPersonal noise monitoring data were collected in nine Alberta sawmills, in winter and in summer (n = 213). Exposures were considered in light of an estimated “real world” noise reduction rating (NRR) calculation assuming use of conventional hearing protection. Limited comparisons were made with spot area monitoring data.ResultsOnly 10% of the personal monitoring measurements were below the Alberta 8‐hr exposure limit of 85 dBA. Twenty‐seven percent of the personal monitoring measurements were 95 dBA or higher. Worker enclosures played a large role in reducing noise exposure. There were no significant differences between seasons in noise category distributions (P = 0.61). The planermen and planer infeed operators had the highest percentage of personal monitoring measurements 95 dBA or higher (62% and 82%, respectively).ConclusionsBased on a conservative formula, a risk of excess noise exposure could exist even when wearing required hearing protection due to very high noise levels found in planing operations in sawmills. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43: 156–164, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…That is, service-users within mental healthcare institutions may be vulnerable from the outset, since (a) they are often unable to escape from the noise, especially if they are detained under the Mental Health Act or do not have alternative accommodation (b) noise sensitivity may be a predisposing factor for mental illness (Tarnopolsky et al, 1978;Jones et al, 1981) and (c) there exists a demonstrable correlation between noise (its effects and manifestations) and the psychopathology of the individual affected (Jones et al, 1981;Arguelles et al, 1970;Westman and Walters, 1981;Melamed et al, 1994;Belojevic et al, 2001), eliciting greater 'stress' or arousal responses in those with psychological or psychiatric problems.…”

Section: Implications For Hospital Inhabitants -Service Users and Staffmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of noise in clinical environments with particular reference to mental health care: A narrative review

Brown

Rutherford

Crawford

2015

International Journal of Nursing Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is a large literature suggesting that noise can be detrimental to health and numerous policy documents have promoted noise abatement in clinical settings. ObjectivesThis paper documents the role of noise in clinical environments and its deleterious effects with a particular focus on mental health care. Our intention however, is to go beyond the notion that noise is simply undesirable and examine the extent to which researchers have explored the meaning of sound in hospital settings and identify new opportunities for research and practice. Data sources and review methodsThis is a narrative review which has grouped the literature and issues in the field into themes concerning the general issues of noise in health care; sleep noise and hospital environments; noise in intensive care units; implications for service users and staff; and suggestions for new ways of conceptualising and researching clinical soundscapes. Data sources comprised relevant UK policy documents and the results of a literature search of Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Knowledge using terms such as noise, health, hospital, soundscape and relevant additional terms derived from the papers retrieved. In addition the references of retrieved articles were scanned for additional relevant material and historical items significant in shaping the field. ResultsExcess unwanted noise can clearly be detrimental to health and impede recovery, and this is clearly recognised by policymakers especially in the UK context. We use the literature surveyed to argue that it is important also to see the noise in clinical environments in terms of the meaning it conveys and rather than merely containing unwanted sound, clinical environments have a 'soundscape'. This comprises noises which convey meaning, for example about the activities of other people, the rhythms of the day and the nature of the auditory community of the hospital. Unwanted sound may have unwanted effects, especially on those who are most vulnerable, yet this does not necessarily mean that silence is the better option.Page 2 Therefore it is our contention that it is important to begin thinking about the social functions of sound in the mental health environment. ConclusionsWhilst it can be stressful, sound can also be soothing, reassuring and a rich source of information about the environment as well. It may be used to secure a degree of privacy for oneself, to exclude others or as a source of solidarity among friends and colleagues. The challenge then is to understand the work that sound does in its ecological context in health care settings.

show abstract

Noise exposure, noise annoyance, use of hearing protection devices and distress among blue-collar workers.

Cited by 34 publications

References 25 publications

Noise Induced Hearing Loss

Noise Induced Hearing Loss

An investigation of noise levels in Alberta sawmills

The role of noise in clinical environments with particular reference to mental health care: A narrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About