Validity of self-reported occupational noise exposure

Noise exposure might be a risk factor for ischemic heart disease (IHD). Unlike residential exposure, however, evidence for occupational noise is limited. Given that high-quality quantitative synthesis of existing data is highly warranted for occupational safety and policy, we aimed at conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risks of IHD morbidity and mortality because of occupational noise exposure. We carried out a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and on the Internet since April 2, 2015, in English, Spanish, Russian, and Bulgarian. A quality-scoring checklist was developed a priori to assess different sources of methodological bias. A qualitative data synthesis was performed. Conservative assumptions were applied when appropriate. A meta-analysis was not feasible because of unresolvable methodological discrepancies between the studies. On the basis of five studies, there was some evidence to suggest higher risk of IHD among workers exposed to objectively assessed noise >75–80 dB for <20 years (supported by one high, one moderate, and one low quality study, opposed by one high and one moderate quality study). Three moderate and two low quality studies out of six found self-rated exposure to be associated with higher risk of IHD, and only one moderate quality study found no effect. Out of four studies, a higher mortality risk was suggested by one moderate quality study relying on self-rated exposure and one of high-quality study using objective exposure. Sensitivity analyses showed that at higher exposures and in some vulnerable subgroups, such as women, the adverse effects were considerably stronger. Despite methodological discrepancies and limitations of the included studies, occupational noise appeared to be a risk factor for IHD morbidity. Results suggested higher risk for IHD mortality only among vulnerable subgroups. Workers exposed to high occupational noise should be considered at higher overall risk of IHD.

show abstract

“…Perceived exposure might add unique explanatory power to the analyses and is considered a valid exposure metric in some cases. [484950]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational noise and ischemic heart disease: A systematic review

Dzhambov

Dimitrova

2016

Noise Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The validity of any assessment method is subject to the nature of the exposure of interest. Experts more accurately estimate exposures for commonly used agents and classes of agents compared with individual substances,1 while workers more accurately self-report exposure to substances that are easily perceptible, such as occupational noise,39 vibrations40 or odour 1 4. The utility of JEMs is optimised for exposures that are prevalent and occur with increased uniformity within occupational categories, since heterogeneity contributes to misclassification 41.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of exposure assessment approaches: lung cancer and occupational asbestos exposure in a population-based case–control study

et al. 2013

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: 82%

“…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: 82%

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

Validity of self-reported occupational noise exposure

Cited by 39 publications

References 19 publications

Occupational noise and ischemic heart disease: A systematic review

Occupational noise and ischemic heart disease: A systematic review

A comparison of exposure assessment approaches: lung cancer and occupational asbestos exposure in a population-based case–control study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About