Types of Hearing Protection Devices and Application

Occupational noise poses a persistent hazard to hearing, while lack of awareness and inadequate hearing protection device (HPD) training heighten the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Few studies have investigated the effects of NIHL and HPD use in Saudi Arabia, with only one in Jeddah. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the prevalence of occupational NIHL and assess workers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding HPDs in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This cross-sectional study included 200 industrial workers aged 18-55 years who were exposed to noise. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including correlations and chi-squared tests. A 32-item questionnaire assessed the KAP regarding occupational NIHL and HPD usage. Hearing screening was conducted using pure-tone audiometry at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz. Participants who failed screening underwent a comprehensive audiological evaluation. The analysis revealed that 39.5% of the participants failed hearing screening. Regarding participants' knowledge, 82% believed that noise could affect hearing, 64.5% believed that NIHL could be prevented, and only 35% knew that it was permanent. In terms of HPD usage, 49% always wore them and 34% wore them sometimes. The main reason for not using HPDs was the difficulty communicating with others while wearing them (40%). Findings revealed that the prevalence of occupational NIHL was higher than the global prevalence. Thus, hearing conservation programs and enhanced awareness of the permanent nature of NIHL can encourage HPD utilization, which is crucial for preventing diminished productivity, income, and overall quality of life.

Noise exposure of firefighters results in increased risk of hearing loss. Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) can be prevented by the consistent use of hearing protection devices (HPDs). However, little is known about firefighters' perceptions and attitudes on NIHL and HPD use. The purposes of the study were (1) to identify common noise sources of fire fighting equipment and activities; and (2) to describe the attitudes and beliefs of firefighters concerning the importance of their hearing, occupational noise exposure, NIHL, and HPD use. A nonexperimental, descriptive focus group design was used to gather qualitative data from firefighters at two fire houses in southeast Michigan. The study identified sources of noise unique to fire fighting, such as driving fire/emergency trucks with sirens on; operating water pumps, saws, and other equipment; and shouting to communicate with civilians and fellow firefighters. Firefighters acknowledged the significance of good hearing in fire fighting service but perceived NIHL was unavoidable on the job and viewed it as a small risk compared with other hazards. HPDs were not used regularly because firefighters believed they interfered with the ability to hear commands during emergency conditions, interfered with other required safety equipment, and were generally forgotten when gearing up. Firefighters recognized the importance of hearing health and the benefit of a hearing conservation program, including annual training, and identified several topics that should be included in a training program. These findings will provide critical information in planning what type of program should be developed and carried out for the fire fighting population.

Background: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is one of the most common but absolutely preventable occupational diseases. One of the measures to prevent and control noise's harmful effects in the workplaces is the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) that workers do not often accept to use or do not use throughout the entire work shift. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of delegating the right to choose HPD to workers on the increase of the duration of using them. Methods: This interventional study was conducted on 60 male workers divided into two groups, intervention (n: 30) and control (n: 30), who were exposed to non-permissible sound levels during sampling. A questionnaire including BASNEF constructs was completed by both groups in two stages, ie, before intervention and 3 months after completion of the intervention delegating the right to choose HPD to workers. Durations of using HPD were recorded in two stages in intervention and control groups and compared. Data analysis was conducted by SPSS 22. Results: In intervention group, the number of workers who used HPDs full time was 0 (0%) before intervention and 16 (53.33%) after intervention. The duration of using HPDs significantly increased after intervention in intervention group than in control group. Conclusion: The intervention based on providing HPDs that are appropriate for the needs and wishes of workers and available as well as promoting their use in the work environment can persuade them to use such devices continuously.

This study tested the hypotheses that, in high noise levels [> or = 85 dB(A)], hearing protection devices are used largely by workers sensitive to noise, as reflected by reports of noise annoyance, and that the usage would reduce distress symptoms. Data collected from 1587 healthy male blue-collar workers included noise exposure level, noise annoyance, use of hearing protection devices, distress symptoms (somatic complaints and poststress irritability), and possible confounding by age, education and ethnic origin. Multiple logistic regression results indicated that the use of hearing protection devices was related to noise exposure level [odds ratio (OR) 2.94, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.58--3.30], but more so to high noise annoyance (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.77--3.29), even after control for age, education, and ethnic origin. No interaction was found between noise level and noise annoyance. These findings highlight the contribution of noise annoyance to the use of hearing protection devices. Of the 42.6% of workers using hearing protection devices in the presence of high ambient noise, 60% were highly annoyed. Noise-annoyed workers also tended to wear hearing protection devices even in low noise levels. The use of hearing protection devices was associated with lower distress symptoms among the low and moderately annoyed workers, but among the highly annoyed workers the reverse was true. Thus, for the highly annoyed workers, the use of hearing protection devices was perhaps an additional source of stress. One immediate implication of this study is that future intervention procedures should focus on unannoyed workers who tend to use hearing protection devices less.

Sound advice for public health

Identify contemporary noise exposures and hearing protection use among adults. Cross-sectional analysis of national health survey. Adult respondents in the 2014 National Health Interview Series hearing survey module were analyzed. Potentially harmful exposures to occupational and recreational noises in the past 12 months were extracted and quantified. Patterns of hearing protection use also were analyzed. Among 239.7 million adults, "loud" and "very loud" occupational noise exposures were reported by 5.3% and 21.7%, respectively. Of those exposed to "loud" or "very loud" sounds at work, only 18.7% and 43.6%, respectively, always used hearing protection. A total of 38.2% (1.9 million) of those with "very loud" occupational exposures never used hearing protection. Frequent (> 10/year) "loud" and "very loud" recreational noise exposures were reported by 13.9% and 21.1%, respectively, most commonly to lawn mowers (72.6% and 55.2%, respectively). When exposed to recreational "loud/very loud" noise, only 11.4% always used hearing protection, whereas 62.3% (6.3 million) never used any protection. Lifetime exposure to firearm noise was reported by 36.6% of adults, 11.5% of whom had used firearms in the prior 12 months. Of those, only 58.5% always used hearing protection, whereas 21.4% (7.4 million) never used hearing protection. Substantial noise exposures with potentially serious long-term hearing health consequences frequently are occurring in occupational and recreational settings, and with the use of firearms. Only a minority of those exposed consistently are using hearing protection. Healthcare providers should actively identify and encourage the use of hearing protection with those patients at risk. 4. Laryngoscope, 127:E340-E346, 2017.

To determine the prevalence and characteristics of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) among career firefighters. A Web-based survey and a standard audiometric test were performed with 425 firefighters from three states in the United States. More than 40% showed hearing loss in the noise-sensitive frequencies (4 and 6 kHz). The left ear showed significantly poorer hearing than the right ear. Firefighters having longer years of work in fire services demonstrated significantly worse hearing. Reported use of HPDs was 34% of the time that was needed. Firefighters who used HPDs less were significantly more likely to have hearing loss. This study demonstrated a considerable NIHL problem and low use of HPDs in firefighters. More comprehensive hearing conservation programs should be implemented to reduce NIHL for firefighters.

INTRODUCTION: This manuscript aims to provide a synopsis of the current situation surrounding noise exposure at work and the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in Malaysia. NIHL is an occupational illness that affects most many people and can be prevented in many countries in the world. The production and agriculture businesses and the extraction of natural resources and urban traffic all contribute to ambient noise levels. Working in a noisy environment is the main occupational risk factor for adult-onset hearing loss. In this study, we investigate the prevalence of NIHL across different industries, as well as research publication trends on NIHL. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Conducted thorough several online databases, like Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, for related research that had already been published. The review phases were carried out according to the recommendations laid out by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews. A set of criteria was developed for selecting relevant studies. RESULTS: The prevalence of NIHL among workers in Malaysia, varies across different industries and has been reported to range from 5.0% to 82.6%. NIHL has multiple contributing factors, including noise intensity, long-term exposure to daily noise, hearing protection devices and age. A review of these studies found varying percentages of individuals affected by each contributing factor. CONCLUSION: Occupational NIHL is a preventable health risk for workers across industries. Employers must adopt engineering and administrative controls (education and training) and provide personal hearing protectors to protect workers from noise.

Noise-induced hearing loss occurs among workers across a wide spectrum of industries. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether annual hearing testing contributed to a change in employees' habits and awareness and aimed to evaluate the use of hearing protection at work and at home. Employees enrolled in a university's hearing conservation program (HCP) were anonymously surveyed regarding their hearing protection habits and awareness of noise exposures on and off the job using a Likert-type scale. Approximately half were "very much" concerned about hearing loss over time. Evidence supports that annual testing, part of the workplace HCP, also led over half of participants to change their habits at work and at home. Awareness of noise exposures increased both at home and at work with annual testing. Overall, the HCP in this particular setting was associated with improved on-the-job and home hearing protection use.

Role of risk factors and their variable types in predicting noise-induced hearing loss using artificial intelligence algorithms.

Consistent use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) decreases noise-induced hearing loss, however, many workers do not use them consistently. Past research has supported the need to use a conceptual framework to understand behaviors and guide intervention programs; however, few reports have specified a process to translate a conceptual model into an intervention. The strongest predictors from the Health Promotion Model were used to design a training program to increase HPD use among construction workers. Carpenters (n = 118), operating engineers (n = 109), and plumber/pipefitters (n = 129) in the Midwest were recruited to participate in the study. Written questionnaires including scales measuring the components of the Health Promotion Model were completed in classroom settings at worker trade group meetings. All items from scales predicting HPD use were reviewed to determine the basis for the content of a program to promote the use of HPDs. Three selection criteria were developed: (1) correlation with use of hearing protection (at least .20), (2) amenability to change, and (3) room for improvement (mean score not at ceiling). Linear regression and Pearson's correlation were used to assess the components of the model as predictors of HPD use. Five predictors had statistically significant regression coefficients: perceived noise exposure, self-efficacy, value of use, barriers to use, and modeling of use of hearing protection. Using items meeting the selection criteria, a 20-minute videotape with written handouts was developed as the core of an intervention. A clearly defined practice session was also incorporated in the training intervention. Determining salient factors for worker populations and specific protective equipment prior to designing an intervention is essential. These predictors provided the basis for a training program that addressed the specific needs of construction workers. Results of tests of the effectiveness of the program will be available in the near future.

Army Moves to Higher Level of Hearing Protection

Occupational noise exposure is the most important problem in auto part factories. Machinery system is mostly used for resistance spot welding in welding unit. Excessive noise could generate from the robot machine and steel part transporting and can cause noise-induced hearing loss. However, most workers do not use hearing protection device. The main objective of this study aimed to assess the effective hearing protection program in preventing noise induced hearing loss in auto part factory workers in Thailand. The specific objectives were 1) To investigate the noise exposure among Thai workers in auto part factory workers. 2) To evaluate the hearing threshold shift among Thai workers in auto part factory workers. 3) To evaluate the hearing protection device using among Thai workers in auto part factory workers. 4) To find the association between the hearing protection device using and hearing threshold shift. This was a Quasi-experiment study. Systemic random sampling was applied to recruit the eligible sixty subjects in welding unit from each factory in Saraburi and Rayong provinces. Subjects in auto part factory at Saraburi were received the intervention and subjects in auto part factory at Rayong were the control group. Subjects in both groups were studied by interviewing with questionnaire, noise exposure level measurement by noise dosimeter audiogram and ear plug using inspection. Major noise exposure level of subjects was at least 85 dB (A). Most Subject (95.0-80.0%) with continuous training in the intervention group increased the use of earplug correctly and consistently during 6 months. Meanwhile, all subjects in the control group did not use earplug. All subjects in the intervention group had the hearing threshold shift level from the first audiogram below 15 dB at 500-6000 Hz in either ear. Most subjects (85.0%) in the control group had the hearing threshold shift level from the first audiogram below 15 dB at 500-6000 Hz in either ear but 15% of those had the hearing threshold shift level from the first audiogram 15 dB at 4000 Hz in either ear. There was significant difference of normal hearing threshold shift between the intervention and the control group (p<0.05, Fisher’s Exact test). The proportion of subjects with earplug using correctly and consistently had the normal hearing threshold shift 11.39% (95% CI: 1.39, 20.25) higher when compared with those who used earplug inconsistently and did not use earplug. Continuous training of noise hazard by lecture and refresher training by DVD every 8 weeks for 6 months can maintain the knowledge of noise hazards and increase the use of earplug correctly and consistently. In addition, the proper earplug using consistently can prevent hearing threshold shift level reach to 15 dB.

In order to further understand the combined effects of occupational and recreational noise exposure with regards to noise induced hearing loss (NIHL), an in-ear dosimeter prototype meant for continuous use was developed. The device acts as a hearing protection device (HPD) and can measure and log effective in-ear sound pressure level as well as unprotected levels. To enable its continuous use, this HPD is also equipped with a bypass feature for “transparent” hearing, input for music or communication devices and interfaces with Android smartphones. The proposed device allows for the implementation of an algorithm accounting for the auditory fatigue recovery rate, providing a true representation of the current accumulated noise dose. This allows for 24 h dosimetry and avoids having the user manually reset the dose back to 0% on the next day and thus assuming complete fatigue recovery has occurred. This paper details the proposed recovery algorithm, presents collected field data, and discusses the benefits as well as real-world challenges of using such a device.

A Little Occupational Audiology for the Clinical Audiologist