Literature DB >> 19626532

Indicators of hearing protection use: self-report and researcher observation.

Stephanie C Griffin1, Richard Neitzel, William E Daniell, Noah S Seixas.   

Abstract

Hearing protection devices (HPD) are commonly used to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss. There is a large body of research on hearing protection use in industry, and much of it relies on workers' self-reported use of hearing protection. Based on previous studies in fixed industry, worker self-report has been accepted as an adequate and reliable tool to measure this behavior among workers in many industrial sectors. However, recent research indicates self-reported hearing protection use may not accurately reflect subject behavior in industries with variable noise exposure. This study compares workers' self-reported use of hearing protection with their observed use in three workplaces with two types of noise environments: one construction site and one fixed industry facility with a variable noise environment, and one fixed industry facility with a steady noise environment. Subjects reported their use of hearing protection on self-administered surveys and activity cards, which were validated using researcher observations. The primary outcome of interest in the study was the difference between the self-reported use of hearing protection in high noise on the activity card and survey: (1) over one workday, and (2) over a 2-week period. The primary hypotheses for the study were that subjects in workplaces with variable noise environments would report their use of HPDs less accurately than subjects in the stable noise environment, and that reporting would be less accurate over 2 weeks than over 1 day. In addition to noise variability, other personal and workplace factors thought to affect the accuracy of self-reported hearing protection use were also analyzed. This study found good agreement between subjects' self-reported HPD use and researcher observations. Workers in the steady noise environment self-reported hearing protection use more accurately on the surveys than workers in variable noise environments. The findings demonstrate the potential importance of noise exposure variability as a factor influencing reporting accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19626532      PMCID: PMC4567687          DOI: 10.1080/15459620903139060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  26 in total

1.  An assessment of occupational noise exposures in four construction trades.

Authors:  R Neitzel; N S Seixas; J Camp; M Yost
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec

2.  Explaining Mexican American workers' hearing protection use with the health promotion model.

Authors:  Madeleine J Kerr; Sally L Lusk; David L Ronis
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase factory workers' use of hearing protection.

Authors:  Sally L Lusk; David L Ronis; Anamaria S Kazanis; Brenda L Eakin; OiSaeng Hong; Delbert M Raymond
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.381

4.  A comparison of multiple indicators--observations, supervisor report, and self-report as measures of workers' hearing protection use.

Authors:  S L Lusk; D L Ronis; L M Baer
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 2.651

5.  Using persuasive messages to encourage voluntary hearing protection among coal miners.

Authors:  Michael T Stephenson; Kim Witte; Charles Vaught; Brian L Quick; Steve Booth-Butterfield; Dhaval Patel; Cynthia Zuckerman
Journal:  J Safety Res       Date:  2005-01-08

6.  Comparison of the original and revised structures of the Health Promotion Model in predicting construction workers' use of hearing protection.

Authors:  David L Ronis; OiSaeng Hong; Sally L Lusk
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.228

7.  Test of the Health Promotion Model as a causal model of workers' use of hearing protection.

Authors:  S L Lusk; D L Ronis; M J Kerr; J R Atwood
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  1994 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.381

8.  Predictors of hearing protection use among workers: implications for training programs.

Authors:  S L Lusk; D L Ronis; M J Kerr
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.888

9.  The effectiveness of hearing protection among construction workers.

Authors:  Richard Neitzel; Noah Seixas
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.155

10.  Knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes about hearing loss and hearing protection among racial/ethnically diverse young adults.

Authors:  Carl Crandell; Terry L Mills; Ricardo Gauthier
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.798

View more
  16 in total

1.  Longitudinal assessment of noise exposure in a cohort of construction workers.

Authors:  Richard L Neitzel; Bert Stover; Noah S Seixas
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2011-08-08

2.  A retrospective analysis of noise-induced hearing loss in the Dutch construction industry.

Authors:  M C J Leensen; J C van Duivenbooden; W A Dreschler
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 3.015

3.  Safety climate, hearing climate and hearing protection device use among transportation road maintainers.

Authors:  Jennifer M Cavallari; Katrina A Burch; Jeffrey Hanrahan; Jennifer L Garza; Alicia G Dugan
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2019-05-19       Impact factor: 2.214

4.  Efficacy of technology-based interventions to increase the use of hearing protections among adolescent farmworkers.

Authors:  Khalid M Khan; Sydney S Evans; Sylvanna L Bielko; Diane S Rohlman
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances in a Cohort of Women Firefighters and Office Workers in San Francisco.

Authors:  Jessica Trowbridge; Roy R Gerona; Thomas Lin; Ruthann A Rudel; Vincent Bessonneau; Heather Buren; Rachel Morello-Frosch
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reporting of Hearing Protector Use among Farm Operators.

Authors:  Marjorie C McCullagh; Marie-Anne Rosemberg
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2015-07-23

7.  10-Year prospective study of noise exposure and hearing damage among construction workers.

Authors:  Noah S Seixas; Rick Neitzel; Bert Stover; Lianne Sheppard; Patrick Feeney; David Mills; Sharon Kujawa
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 4.402

8.  Prevalence of hearing protection device non-use among noise-exposed US workers in 2007 and 2014.

Authors:  Deirdre R Green; Elizabeth A Masterson; Christa L Themann
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.079

9.  Effects of interventions on use of hearing protectors among farm operators: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marjorie C McCullagh; Tanima Banerjee; Michael A Cohen; James J Yang
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Effect of workplace noise on hearing ability in tile and ceramic industry workers in Iran: a 2-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Mehrdad Mostaghaci; Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi; Amir Houshang Mehrparvar; Maryam Bahaloo; Abolfazl Mollasadeghi; Mohammad Hossein Davari
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-12-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.