Understanding Barriers to Preventive Health Actions for Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

Patel, Dhaval; Witte, Kim; Zuckerman, Cynthia; Murray-Johnson, Lisa; Orrego, Victoria O.; Maxfield, Andrew; Meadows-Hogan, Suzanne; Tisdale, Julie; Thimons, Edward D.

doi:10.1080/108107301750254484

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[10] The use of hearing protection is further impacted by the inability of workers to communicate effectively when using them. [12,25] The workers felt that using HPDs cut them off from others and made them lonely. In addition, it was difficult and a hassle to remove hearing protection every time to communicate and then put them back on.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2] Previous New Zealand research into of occupational exposure found that just half the plant and machine operators, assemblers, and elementary workers who worked in noisy environments reported hearing protection use. [9] Although international studies have looked at factors that influence the use of HPDs, [10][11][12][13] no such study has been found in New Zealand manufacturing workers. 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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing protection use in manufacturing workers: A qualitative study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the hierarchy of control, engineering and administrative controls are the first line of defence in the management of hazardous noise in the workplace, after elimination and substitution of the noise source (McBride, 2004;Patel et al, 2010;Rappaport and Provencal, 2001). However, evidence suggests that in practice, engineering and administrative controls are not given first priority (Suter, 2012).…”

Section: Management Of Onihlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ONIHL is the 'partial or complete hearing loss in one or both ears as a result of one's employment' (Nandi and Dhatrak, 2008, p. 1). This type of hearing loss develops gradually as a result of being exposed to continuous or intermittent high levels of noise over a long period of time (McBride, 2004;Patel et al, 2010;Rappaport and Provencal, 2001). A hearing threshold below 40 dBs is classified as a disabling hearing loss (Yadav et al, 2015), resulting in a hidden condition that does not readily manifest itself (Tye-Murray, 2009, p. 3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A proposed preliminary model for monitoring hearing conservation programmes in the mining sector in South Africa

Moroe¹,

Khoza-Shangase²,

Madahana³

et al. 2019

J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL) is classified as the leading work-related disability in the mining industry. ONIHL has a negative impact, on not only the health and occupational productivity of affected individuals, but arguably also on the country's mining industry and economy. Hearing conservation programmes (HCPs) are an effective strategy in the management of ONIHL. However, current literature indicates that HCPs are not achieving the anticipated and desired outcomes in the South African mining sector despite the efforts focused on the management of ONIHL. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to propose the use of a feedback-based noise monitoring model as a tool for monitoring and managing ONIHL in the South Africa's mining sector. This model is a basic static feedback model with practical applications such as estimating, monitoring. and providing quantitative information to aid miners, mining administrators, and policy-makers in decision-making around HCPs. Additionally, the model could form part of an early intervention and management strategy for ONIHL in the workplace. The strength of this model, although currently static, is that it encompasses all the pillars of HCPs and takes into account the policies concerned with the management of ONIHL in the mining sector.

show abstract

“…While personal protective equipment (hearing protection) can control the hazard, some researchers indicate that there are strong workplace cultural factors that preclude their proper use Patel et al, 2001). It is therefore more effective to devise engineering controls for noise hazards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Part I - Effects of Diameter on Active Noise Control in Rectangular and Round Ducts

Slagley¹,

Guffey²

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plublic reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the eor reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. acoustic principles dictate that the cut-on frequency at which higher order modes will first begin to eclipse simple plane waves in a duct will be determined by the cross-sectional diameter of the duct. The lowest frequency for higher order modes will increase as duct diameter decreases. Therefore, the range of frequencies where plane waves dominate will be greater and effective control using ANC better as duct diameter decreases. The result is that somewhat higher frequencies can be controlled with ANC for smaller diameters. Below the first higher order mode cut-on frequency for the largest size studied, there should be little difference in ANC effectiveness between the duct sizes. To test those suppositions, a commercially-available ANC system was used to reduce random noise in rectangular and round ducts having different diameters. Results showed that insertion loss (IL) ranged from 5 to 30 dB in frequencies ranging from 40-1000 Hz, and varied inversely with size as expected.There was no difference in IL below 280 Hz (p=0.7751) between the different diameter ducts.There was a significant difference between duct diameters above 280 Hz (p<0.0001). The same tests were conducted on a rectangular duct with one cross-sectional dimension fixed and one varied at seven different sizes. Results showed similar IL from 5 to 30 dB that varied inversely with size. There was no difference in IL below 280 Hz (p=0. 3 3 48) between the different duct dimensions. There was a significant difference between duct dimensions above 280 Hz (p=0.0 2 2 0).

show abstract

Understanding Barriers to Preventive Health Actions for Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

Cited by 31 publications

References 18 publications

Hearing protection use in manufacturing workers: A qualitative study

Hearing protection use in manufacturing workers: A qualitative study

A proposed preliminary model for monitoring hearing conservation programmes in the mining sector in South Africa

Part I - Effects of Diameter on Active Noise Control in Rectangular and Round Ducts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About