Literature DB >> 27397968

Uncovering effective strategies for hearing loss prevention.

Thais C Morata1, Deanna Meinke2.   

Abstract

Occupational health agencies, researchers and policy makers have recognized the need for evidence on the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce or prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. While many workplaces comply with legal or obligatory requirements and implement recommended interventions, few publications exist documenting the effectiveness of these actions. Additionally, some workplaces have discovered through their own processes, novel ways to reduce the risk of injury. Peer-reviewed information on the effectiveness of the many strategies and approaches currently in use could help correct weaknesses, or further encourage their adoption and expansion. The evaluation of intervention effectiveness would certainly contribute to improved worker health and safety. This need is particularly relevant regarding noise exposure in the workplace and hearing loss prevention interventions. In a 2006 review of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Hearing Loss Research Program, the independent National Academies of Sciences recommended that NIOSH place greater emphasis on identifying the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention measures on the basis of outcomes that are as closely related as possible to reducing noise exposure and work related hearing loss (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11721). NIOSH used two different approaches to address that recommendation: the first one was to conduct research, including broad systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss. The second was to create an award program, the Safe-In-Sound Excellence in Hearing Loss Prevention Award™, to identify and honor excellent real-world examples of noise control and other hearing loss prevention practices and innovations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Buy Quiet; Evidence-based practice; hearing conservation; intervention effectiveness; noise control

Year:  2016        PMID: 27397968      PMCID: PMC4930158          DOI: 10.1007/s40857-016-0044-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acoust Aust        ISSN: 0814-6039            Impact factor:   1.500


  17 in total

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

Authors:  Nicholas Heyer; Thais C Morata; Lynne E Pinkerton; Scott E Brueck; Daniel Stancescu; Mary Prince Panaccio; Hyoshin Kim; J Stephen Sinclair; Martha A Waters; Cherie F Estill; John R Franks
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2010-11-07       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  OSHA's voluntary protection programs. The benefits to occupational health nurses and their companies.

Authors:  S D Scott; P K Bertsche
Journal:  AAOHN J       Date:  1991-05

3.  A comparison of "Train-the-Trainer" and expert training modalities for hearing protection use in construction.

Authors:  Maggie Trabeau; Richard Neitzel; Hendrika Meischke; William E Daniell; Noah S Seixas
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.214

4.  Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States.

Authors:  W E Daniell; S S Swan; M M McDaniel; J E Camp; M A Cohen; J G Stebbins
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2006-03-21       Impact factor: 4.402

5.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement.

Authors:  Gilda Piaggio; Diana R Elbourne; Douglas G Altman; Stuart J Pocock; Stephen J W Evans
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-03-08       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The hearing conservation amendment: 25 years later.

Authors:  Alice H Suter
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2009 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.867

Review 7.  Interventions to promote the wearing of hearing protection.

Authors:  Regina P El Dib; Joseph L Mathew; Regina H G Martins
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-04-18

8.  The Codman competition: Rewarding excellence in performance measurement, 19 -20.

Authors:  John Noble
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2006-11

9.  Five steps to conducting a systematic review.

Authors:  Khalid S Khan; Regina Kunz; Jos Kleijnen; Gerd Antes
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 18.000

10.  Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample.

Authors:  Stela Pudar Hozo; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Iztok Hozo
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2005-04-20       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  5 in total

1.  Early hearing slope as a predictor of subsequent hearing trajectory in a noise-exposed occupational cohort.

Authors:  Linda F Cantley; Deron Galusha; Martin D Slade
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Variability and Determinants of Occupational Noise Exposure Among Iron and Steel Factory Workers in Tanzania.

Authors:  Israel P Nyarubeli; Alexander M Tungu; Magne Bråtveit; Erlend Sunde; Akwilina V Kayumba; Bente E Moen
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 2.179

Review 3.  Classification of audiograms in the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss: A clinical perspective.

Authors:  Zumbi Musiba
Journal:  S Afr J Commun Disord       Date:  2020-03-03

Review 4.  South African hearing conservation programmes in the context of tele-audiology: A scoping review.

Authors:  Katijah Khoza-Shangase; Nomfundo Moroe
Journal:  S Afr J Commun Disord       Date:  2020-03-03

5.  Effectiveness of a Novel Index System in Preventing Early Hearing Loss among Furniture Industry Skills Training Students in Malaysia.

Authors:  Khairul Azhar Abdul Rahim; Jegalakshimi Jewaratnam; Che Rosmani Che Hassan; Mahar Diana Hamid
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-31       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.