| Literature DB >> 34512052 |
Daniel Raj Rasasoran1, Azman Atil2, Mohammad Saffree Jeffree2, Sahipudin Saupin2, Khamisah Awang Lukman3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Almost 90% of the reported occupational diseases in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo were due to hearing loss. The manufacturing industry was the main contributor to this problem. This study aims to identify the prevalence and associated factors for hearing loss among workers in the palm oil manufacturing industry in Sabah.Entities:
Keywords: hearing loss; noise exposed workers; palm oil mill
Year: 2021 PMID: 34512052 PMCID: PMC8420783 DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S319858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Risk Manag Healthc Policy ISSN: 1179-1594
Descriptive Analysis Among Noise-Exposed Workers in Palm Oil Mills (N = 312)
| Variables | Frequency (%) | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 300 (96.2) | |
| Female | 12 (3.8) | |
| 44.4 (9.8) | ||
| Married | 264 (84.6) | |
| Unmarried | 48 (15.4) | |
| Blue Collar | 297 (95.2) | |
| White Collar | 15 (4.8) | |
| Yes | 219 (70.2) | |
| No | 93 (29.8) | |
| 96.1 (4.8) | ||
| 16.2 (9.7) | ||
| 5.9 (2.7) |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; dB(A), A-weighted decibel.
Univariate Analysis of Hearing Loss Among Noise-Exposed Workers in Palm Oil Mills
| Variables | NIHL (n=234) (No./%) | Non-NIHL (n=80) (No./%) | Chi Square or | PR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 228 (76.0) | 72 (24.0) | 0 a | 0.080 | 1.520 | 0.860 | 2.686 |
| Female | 6 (50.0) | 6 (50.0) | |||||
| 46.6 (8.8) b | 37.5 (9.6) b | 9.904 c | 0.001 | - | 6.785 | 11.403 | |
| Married | 213 (80.7) | 51 (19.3) | 29.545 | 0.001 | 1.844 | 1.331 | 2.555 |
| Unmarried | 21 (43.8) | 27 (56.3) | |||||
| Blue Collar | 228 (76.8) | 69 (23.2) | 0 a | 0.003 | 1.919 | 1.029 | 3.578 |
| White Collar | 6 (40.0) | 9 (60.0) | |||||
| Yes | 141 (88.7) | 18 (11.3) | 32.358 | 0.001 | 1.459 | 1.270 | 1.676 |
| No | 93 (60.8) | 60 (39.2) | |||||
| Yes | 33 (84.6) | 6 (15.4) | 2.198 | 0.138 | 1.149 | 0.988 | 1.337 |
| No | 201 (73.6) | 72 (26.4) | |||||
| Yes | 174 (79.5) | 45 (20.5) | 7.767 | 0.005 | 1.232 | 1.044 | 1.453 |
| No | 60 (64.5) | 33 (35.5) | |||||
| 95.7 (4.9) b | 97.2 (4.5) b | 1.580 c | 0.015 | - | 0.292 | 2.682 | |
| 18.2 (9.4) b | 10.0 (8.2) b | 8.188 c | 0.001 | - | 5.992 | 10.385 | |
| 6.4 (2.5) b | 4.4 (2.7) b | 1.987 c | 0.001 | - | 1.331 | 2.644 | |
| Yes | 42 (68.9) | 19 (31.1) | 1.528 | 0.216 | 0.900 | 0.750 | 1.080 |
| No | 192 (76.5) | 59 (23.5) | |||||
| Yes | 48 (72.7) | 18 (27.3) | 0.231 | 0.631 | 0.962 | 0.816 | 1.133 |
| No | 186 (75.6) | 60 (24.4) | |||||
| Yes | 9 (75.0) | 3 (25.0) | 0 a | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.717 | 1.395 |
| No | 225 (75.0) | 75 (25.0) | |||||
| Yes | 21 (77.8) | 6 (22.2) | 0.122 | 0.727 | 1.041 | 0.841 | 1.287 |
| No | 213 (74.7) | 72 (25.3) | |||||
Notes:aFisher’s exact test, bmean (SD), cmean difference.
Abbreviations: NIHL, noise-induced hearing loss; PR, prevalence ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.