Use of historical data and a novel metric in the evaluation of the effectiveness of hearing conservation program components

Heyer, Nicholas J.; Morata, Thaís C.; Pinkerton, Lynne E.; Brueck, Scott E.; Stancescu, Daniel; Panaccio, Mary P; Kim, Hyoshin; Sinclair, Jennifer; Waters, Martha A.; Estill, Cherie F; Franks, John R.

doi:10.1136/oem.2009.053801

Cited by 39 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another five studies, the authors tried to show that better implementation of a hearing loss prevention program led to a better outcome (Adera et al, 1993, 2000; Simpson et al, 1994; Brink et al, 2002; Heyer et al, 2011). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparability of both age and hearing loss at baseline could be ascertained in four studies (Davies et al, 2008; Lee-Feldstein, 1993; Muhr et al, 2006; Heyer et al, 2011), age only in two studies (Gosztonyi, 1975; Berg et al, 2009), and hearing loss only in one study (Pell, 1973), and neither age nor hearing loss in one study (Hager et al, 1982). In Pell (1973) there was a difference of ten years between the protected and the non-exposed group, artificially increasing the risk in the non-exposed group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss: A Cochrane systematic review

Verbeek

Kateman²,

Morata

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. Design We searched biomedical databases up to 25 January 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies and interrupted time-series of hearing loss prevention among workers exposed to noise. Study sample We included 19 studies with 82 794 participants evaluating effects of hearing loss prevention programs (HLPP). The overall quality of studies was low to very low, as rated using the GRADE approach. Results One study of stricter legislation showed a favorable effect on noise levels. Three studies, of which two RCTs, did not find an effect of a HLPP. Four studies showed that better use of hearing protection devices in HLPPs decreased the risk of hearing loss. In four other studies, workers in a HLPP still had a 0.5 dB greater hearing loss at 4 kHz (95% CI – 0.5 to 1.7) than non-exposed workers. In two similar studies there was a substantial risk of hearing loss in spite of a HLPP. Conclusions Stricter enforcement of legislation and better implementation of HLPPs can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Better evaluations of technical interventions and long-term effects are needed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss: A Cochrane systematic review

Verbeek

Kateman²,

Morata

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also an aspect that has been widely discussed and recommended as part of the HPP (9,30) . Studies have shown that workers taking training programs to learn the proper placement of hearing protectors achieve a better attenuation and comfort use offered by the protectors, therefore resulting in a better acceptance (4,5,11,30) . With regard to the evaluation of the used hearing protector as to its global comfort, the hearing protectors of this study received good classifications (scores higher than three, which is the median value of the answer possibilities), without differences of perception between shell-type and insert-type hearing protector users.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To succeed in this issue, effective awareness actions should be implemented as part of the HPP (9,10) . Correct use of the most appropriate hearing protector for each labor situation is a hard task to the team developing the HPP, because it involves aspects such as the ability to work with people, communication and motivation art, use of supervision and control, and ergonomic issues associated with the hearing protector (11,12) . Some studies show that the hearing protector attenuation may be restricted based upon the worker's emplacement (13) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of hearing protectors by workers that participate in hearing preservation programs: a preliminary study

Gonçalves

Lüders

Guirado

et al. 2015

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the workers' perception of comfort and use aspects regarding two types of hearing protectors (shell and earplug), in three units from a lumbering company, with different implantation times for Hearing Preservation Programs.METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study comparing 440 workers' perception of hearing protectors, from three companies in Paraná State (Brazil), with different times for Hearing Preservation Programs. Two closed questionnaires were applied (9 and 10 questions, respectively), with a scale of answers varying from 1 to 5 (Likert's scale) regarding the perception of the comfort of hearing protectors. Then, audiometry results were analyzed.RESULTS: About 17.5% presented audiogram examinations with alterations. With regard to the questionnaire about the comfort perception, the importance of noise attenuation (mean of 4.25) was the most relevant aspect, followed by communication possibility (mean of 4.15). In the protector assessment, Unit A with more Hearing Preservation Program time presented better scores for both the worker's perception of important aspects regarding hearing protector and for the assessment of the used hearing protector. There was a significant difference on communication difficulty with the use of a hearing protector among workers with normal and altered audiograms (p=0.0371). With regard to the global comfort in the comparison of workers using the shell-type hearing protector with those using insert-type hearing protectors, there was no difference (p=0.2264), irrespective of the type of the unit.CONCLUSION: In general, the unit workers presented a good perception of the important aspects about the hearing protection use of both types of hearing protectors.

show abstract

“…Audiometric screening based on these guidelines has been used in previous NIOSH research [Heyer et al 2011;Masterson et al 2013]. After screening, the dataset had 4,750 audiograms from 483 workers.…”

Section: Page 24mentioning

confidence: 99%

Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of impact and continuous noise exposure, hearing loss, heat stress, and whole body vibration at a hammer forge company.

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of historical data and a novel metric in the evaluation of the effectiveness of hearing conservation program components

Abstract: Historical audiometric data combined with noise monitoring data can be used to better understand the effectiveness of HCPs. Regular collection and maintenance of quality data should be encouraged and used to monitor the effectiveness of these interventions.

Cited by 39 publications

References 25 publications

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss: A Cochrane systematic review

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss: A Cochrane systematic review

Perception of hearing protectors by workers that participate in hearing preservation programs: a preliminary study

Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of impact and continuous noise exposure, hearing loss, heat stress, and whole body vibration at a hammer forge company.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About