Matthew R Groenewold1, Elizabeth A Masterson, Christa L Themann, Rickie R Davis. 1. Surveillance Branch, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the association between self-reported hearing protection use at work and incidence of hearing shifts over a 5-year period. METHODS: Audiometric data from 19,911 workers were analyzed. Two hearing shift measures-OSHA standard threshold shift (OSTS) and high-frequency threshold shift (HFTS)-were used to identify incident shifts in hearing between workers' 2005 and 2009 audiograms. Adjusted odds ratios were generated using multivariable logistic regression with multi-level modeling. RESULTS: The odds ratio for hearing shift for workers who reported never versus always wearing hearing protection was nonsignificant for OSTS (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92-1.64) and marginally significant for HFTS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00-1.59). A significant linear trend towards increased risk of HFTS with decreased use of hearing protection was observed (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The study raises concern about the effectiveness of hearing protection as a substitute for noise control to prevent noise-induced hearing loss in the workplace. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: We examined the association between self-reported hearing protection use at work and incidence of hearing shifts over a 5-year period. METHODS: Audiometric data from 19,911 workers were analyzed. Two hearing shift measures-OSHA standard threshold shift (OSTS) and high-frequency threshold shift (HFTS)-were used to identify incident shifts in hearing between workers' 2005 and 2009 audiograms. Adjusted odds ratios were generated using multivariable logistic regression with multi-level modeling. RESULTS: The odds ratio for hearing shift for workers who reported never versus always wearing hearing protection was nonsignificant for OSTS (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92-1.64) and marginally significant for HFTS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00-1.59). A significant linear trend towards increased risk of HFTS with decreased use of hearing protection was observed (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The study raises concern about the effectiveness of hearing protection as a substitute for noise control to prevent noise-induced hearing loss in the workplace. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Entities:
Keywords:
hearing protection; noise; noise-induced hearing loss; occupational hearing loss
Authors: Elizabeth A Masterson; SangWoo Tak; Christa L Themann; David K Wall; Matthew R Groenewold; James A Deddens; Geoffrey M Calvert Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Olivier Doutres; Jonathan Terroir; Caroline Jolly; Chantal Gauvin; Laurence Martin; Alessia Negrini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Alessandra G Samelli; Raquel F Gomes; Tiago V Chammas; Bárbara G Silva; Renata R Moreira; Ana C Fiorini Journal: Noise Health Date: 2018 May-Jun Impact factor: 0.867
Authors: Wei Gong; Liangliang Zhao; Ling Li; Thais C Morata; Wei Qiu; Huiling Amy Feng; Baoli Zhu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.390