Stephanie K Sayler1, Peter M Rabinowitz2, Linda F Cantley3, Deron Galusha3, Richard L Neitzel1. 1. a Department of Environmental Health Sciences , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , MI , USA. 2. b Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA , and. 3. c Yale Occupational and Environmental Medicine Program , Yale University School of Medicine , New Haven , CT , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study characterised overall and specific costs associated with hearing conservation programmes (HCPs) at US metal manufacturing sites, and examined the association between these costs and several noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) outcomes. DESIGN: We interviewed personnel and reviewed records at participating facilities. We also measured noise for comparison to the ten-year average of measurements made by each facility. NIHL outcomes assessed included rates of standard threshold shifts (STS) and high-frequency hearing loss, as well as prevalence of hearing impairment, for each participating facility. We used linear regression to identify per-person HCP costs that best predicted the NIHL outcomes. STUDY SAMPLE: We evaluated 14 US metal manufacturing facilities operated by a single company. RESULTS: Annual HCP costs ranged from roughly $67,000 to $397,000 (average $308 ± 80 per worker). Our full-shift noise measurements (mean 83.1 dBA) showed good agreement with the facilities' measurements (mean 82.6 dBA). Hearing impairment prevalence was about 15% overall. Higher expenditures for training and hearing protector fit-testing were significantly associated with reduced STS prevalence. Higher training expenditures were also related to lower hearing impairment prevalence and high-frequency hearing loss rates. CONCLUSIONS: HCP costs were substantial and variable. Increased workplace spending on training and fit-testing may help minimise NIHL.
OBJECTIVE: This study characterised overall and specific costs associated with hearing conservation programmes (HCPs) at US metal manufacturing sites, and examined the association between these costs and several noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) outcomes. DESIGN: We interviewed personnel and reviewed records at participating facilities. We also measured noise for comparison to the ten-year average of measurements made by each facility. NIHL outcomes assessed included rates of standard threshold shifts (STS) and high-frequency hearing loss, as well as prevalence of hearing impairment, for each participating facility. We used linear regression to identify per-personHCP costs that best predicted the NIHL outcomes. STUDY SAMPLE: We evaluated 14 US metal manufacturing facilities operated by a single company. RESULTS: Annual HCP costs ranged from roughly $67,000 to $397,000 (average $308 ± 80 per worker). Our full-shift noise measurements (mean 83.1 dBA) showed good agreement with the facilities' measurements (mean 82.6 dBA). Hearing impairment prevalence was about 15% overall. Higher expenditures for training and hearing protector fit-testing were significantly associated with reduced STS prevalence. Higher training expenditures were also related to lower hearing impairment prevalence and high-frequency hearing loss rates. CONCLUSIONS:HCP costs were substantial and variable. Increased workplace spending on training and fit-testing may help minimise NIHL.
Entities:
Keywords:
Noise; hearing conservation/hearing loss prevention; medical audiology; psychoacoustics/hearing science
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
Authors: Elizabeth A Masterson; P Timothy Bushnell; Christa L Themann; Thais C Morata Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 17.586
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