The accuracy of self-reported high noise exposure level and hearing loss in a working population in Eastern Saudi Arabia

Ahmed, Hafsa; Dennis, John; Ballal, Seifeddin G.

doi:10.1078/1438-4639-00291

Cited by 37 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some occupational health screening programs also collect self-report hearing loss data to supplement less frequent audiometric measurement. However, the majority of studies which have evaluated the accuracy of self-reported hearing loss have focussed on older adults (Gates et al, 1990;Clark et al, 1991;Nondahl et al, 1998;Sindhusake et al, 2001;Valete-Rosalino & Rozenfeld, 2005;Torre et al, 2006), with less research on occupational groups potentially subject to noise-induced hearing loss (Gomez et al, 2001;Ahmed et al, 2004;Ingle et al, 2005). Studies assessing the validity of self-report measures of hearing loss have used a variety of pure-tone audiometry criteria for hearing impairment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Studies assessing the validity of self-report measures of hearing loss have used a variety of pure-tone audiometry criteria for hearing impairment. Major sources of variation between studies include: the threshold level selected to defi ne hearing impairment; the frequencies across which pure-tone audiometry results are averaged; and whether the hearing level at a given frequency is for the worse ear, the better ear, or the average across both ears (Clark et al, 1991;Gomez et al, 2001;Ahmed et al, 2004;Ingle et al, 2005;Valete-Rosalino & Rozenfeld, 2005). Worse-ear high-frequency average hearing thresholds may be of particular interest in studies of military personnel, since studies conducted in this population show that hearing loss tends to be greatest at higher frequencies (Job et al, 1998;Jaruchinda et al, 2005;Raynal et al, 2006;Nageris et al, 2007), and hearing losses from weapons fi re and explosions are often asymmetric (Donahue & Ohlin, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of self-reported and audiometrically-measured hearing loss in the Australian Defence Force

Kirk

McGuire

Nasveld

et al. 2011

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of self-reported and audiometrically-measured hearing loss in the Australian Defence Force

Kirk

McGuire

Nasveld

et al. 2011

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, table 1 shows that both self-reported noise exposure and accumulated exposure time strongly predict the prevalence of hearing loss in bivariable and multivariable models (p<0.001), indicating that self-reported noise exposure was able to reflect actual noise exposure in the workplace, although in the present study hearing loss was also based on self-reports and thus prone to recall bias. In addition, previous studies have shown that self-report is a valid approach in exposure assessment of occupational noise 36 37. In general, self-reported loud occupational noise approximately corresponds to actual workplace noise levels of 80–85 dBA and over 36 37…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…In addition, previous studies have shown that self-report is a valid approach in exposure assessment of occupational noise 36 37. In general, self-reported loud occupational noise approximately corresponds to actual workplace noise levels of 80–85 dBA and over 36 37…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Exposure to occupational noise and cardiovascular disease in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Chronic exposure to occupational noise may be associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and hypertension. However, findings are inconsistent and many previous studies are limited by small sample size and inappropriate control for potential confounders. We used a nationally representative US sample to examine associations of self-reported exposure to occupational noise with CHD and hypertension. Methods This cross-sectional study included 6307 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999e2004, aged $20 years and employed at the time of interview. Noise exposure assessment was based on self-reported exposure to loud noise in the workplace. Results Compared with never exposed participants, subjects chronically exposed to occupational noise had a 2e3-fold increased prevalence of angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, CHD and isolated diastolic hypertension. After adjustment for various covariates, the odds ratios (95% CIs) for angina pectoris, CHD and isolated diastolic hypertension were 2.91 (1.35 to 6.26), 2.04 (1.16 to 3.58) and 2.23 (1.21 to 4.12), respectively. There were clear exposureeresponse relationships for the observed associations. Associations of noise exposure with angina pectoris, myocardial infarction and CHD were particularly strong for participants aged <50 years, men and current smokers. There was no significant increase in levels of cardiovascular biomarkers including blood lipids and circulating inflammatory mediators associated with noise exposure. Conclusions Chronic exposure to occupational noise is strongly associated with prevalence of CHD, especially for young male current smokers. This study suggests that excess noise exposure in the workplace is an important occupational health issue and deserves special attention.

show abstract

“…Several studies have found that perceived exposure items show reasonably good correlation with noise exposures measured via dosimetry (Ahmed et al 2004; Hagerman 2013) or SLMs (Ising et al 1997; Koushki et al 2004). Our own previous study of Swedish office workers, teachers, and flight technicians showed good correlation between noise levels measured by dosimeter the lower response categories for item P3, Raise voice , (Neitzel et al), and this same item showed good correlations with dosimetry measurements of noise exposure among construction workers (Neitzel et al 2011a, 2009b), as well as workers in manufacturing and warehousing operations (Neitzel et al 2009b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Multiple Measures of Noise Exposure in Paper Mills

Neitzel

Andersson

2016

ANNHYG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Noise exposures are associated with a host of adverse health effects, yet these exposures remain inadequately characterized in many industrial operations, including paper mills. We assessed noise at four paper mills using three measures: 1) personal noise dosimetry, 2) area noise measurements, and 3) questionnaire items addressing several different aspects of perceived noise exposure. Methods We assessed exposures to noise characterized using the three measures and compared the relationships between them. We also estimated the validity of each of the three measures using a novel application of the Method of Triads, which does not appear to have been used previously in the occupational health literature. Results We collected 209 valid dosimetry measurements and collected perceived noise exposure survey items from 170 workers, along with 100 area measurements. We identified exposures in excess of 85 dBA at all mills. The dosimetry and area noise measurements assigned to individual subjects generally showed good agreement, but for some operations within mill, large differences between the two measures were observed, and a substantial fraction of paired measures differed by >5 dB. Perceived noise exposures varied greatly between the mills, particularly for an item related to difficulty speaking in noise. One perceived noise exposure item related to difficulty hearing due to noise showed strong and significant correlations with both dosimetry and area measurements. The Method of Triads analysis showed that dosimetry measures had the highest estimated validity coefficient (0.70), and that the best performing perceived exposure measure had validity that exceeded that of area measurements (0.48 vs. 0.40, respectively). Conclusions Workers in Swedish pulp mills have the potential for exposures to high levels of noise. Our results suggest that, while dosimetry remains the preferred approach to exposure assessment, perceived noise exposures can be used to evaluate potential exposures to noise in epidemiological studies.

show abstract

The accuracy of self-reported high noise exposure level and hearing loss in a working population in Eastern Saudi Arabia

Cited by 37 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of self-reported and audiometrically-measured hearing loss in the Australian Defence Force

Comparison of self-reported and audiometrically-measured hearing loss in the Australian Defence Force

Exposure to occupational noise and cardiovascular disease in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004

Comparison of Multiple Measures of Noise Exposure in Paper Mills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About