Objective: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the hearing of police K9 handlers and non-K9 handlers.Design: Cross-sectional design.Study sample: Hearing was assessed on 30 police officers, 12 K9 handlers and 18 non-K9 handlers, from Northeast Ohio. Results: There were no significant differences in audiologic test results between police K9 handlers and non-K9 handlers. Audiometric results revealed that 66.7% of K9 handlers and 83.3% of non-K9 handlers presented with hearing loss. Noise notches, consistent with noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), and asymmetric hearing losses were observed for both groups. Subjective questionnaires indicated low awareness regarding the risks and identification of NIHL in this population.Conclusions: This study represents one of the few studies that focus on hearing assessments in police K9 handlers and non-K9 handlers in the United States and internationally. Significant differences between these two groups were not found, suggesting that K9 handlers do not present a higher risk for NIHL than non-K9 handlers. Nonetheless, the high prevalence of hearing loss identified for both groups in this study suggests the need for increased conservation efforts to raise awareness regarding hearing loss prevention and the need for routine audiologic monitoring for this underserved population.
Objective: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the hearing of police K9 handlers and non-K9 handlers.Design: Cross-sectional design.Study sample: Hearing was assessed on 30 police officers, 12 K9 handlers and 18 non-K9 handlers, from Northeast Ohio. Results: There were no significant differences in audiologic test results between police K9 handlers and non-K9 handlers. Audiometric results revealed that 66.7% of K9 handlers and 83.3% of non-K9 handlers presented with hearing loss. Noise notches, consistent with noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), and asymmetric hearing losses were observed for both groups. Subjective questionnaires indicated low awareness regarding the risks and identification of NIHL in this population.Conclusions: This study represents one of the few studies that focus on hearing assessments in police K9 handlers and non-K9 handlers in the United States and internationally. Significant differences between these two groups were not found, suggesting that K9 handlers do not present a higher risk for NIHL than non-K9 handlers. Nonetheless, the high prevalence of hearing loss identified for both groups in this study suggests the need for increased conservation efforts to raise awareness regarding hearing loss prevention and the need for routine audiologic monitoring for this underserved population.