Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Feasibility of a daily noise monitoring intervention for prevention of noise-induced hearing loss
  1. Peter Rabinowitz1,
  2. Deron Galusha2,
  3. Linda F Cantley2,
  4. Christine Dixon-Ernst3,
  5. Richard Neitzel4
  1. 1Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  2. 2Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  3. 3Otogienex, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Peter Rabinowitz, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; peterr7{at}uw.edu

Abstract

Background Despite the existence of hearing conservation programmes complying with regulatory standards, noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) remains one of the most prevalent occupational diseases. Compulsory daily monitoring of noise exposure has been associated with decreased NIHL risk. We report on the experience of a voluntary daily noise monitoring intervention among noise-exposed workers.

Methods Workers at three locations of a metals manufacturing company voluntarily used an in-ear noise monitoring device that could record and download, on a daily basis, the noise exposure inside of their hearing protection. We compared the hearing loss rates (in decibels hearing level/year) in these volunteers to controls from the same company matched for job title, age, gender, race, plant location, and baseline hearing level.

Results Over the follow-up period, 110 volunteers for whom controls could be identified monitored daily noise exposures an average of 150 times per year. Noise exposures inside of hearing protection were lower than ambient noise levels estimated from company records. While there was no significant difference in hearing loss rates between volunteers and controls, volunteers downloading exposures 150 times per year or had less hearing loss than those who downloaded less frequently.

Conclusion These results indicate that voluntary daily noise exposure monitoring by workers is feasible and that greater frequency of downloading is associated with less hearing loss. If further development of noise monitoring technology can improve usability and address barriers to daily use, regular self-monitoring of noise exposure could improve the effectiveness of hearing conservation programmes.

Trial registration number NCT01714375.

  • noise
  • hearing
  • personal protective equipment

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. A data set for variables related to the study volunteers as well as the analytic protocols is available from the lead author for the purpose of verification of findings. Requests can be sent to peterr7@uw.edu.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. A data set for variables related to the study volunteers as well as the analytic protocols is available from the lead author for the purpose of verification of findings. Requests can be sent to peterr7@uw.edu.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors Conceptualisation of the work: CD-E, RN, PR. Methodology: LFC, DG, RN, PR. Analysis of data: DG. Writing original draft: RN, PR. Writing-reviewing and editing: LFC, CD-E, DG.

  • Funding This study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) Grant 1 R01 OH008641-01A2 'Daily Exposure Monitoring Intervention to Prevent Hearing Loss'.

  • Competing interests CD-E was an employee of the company where the study took place. PMR, DG and LFC had received funding from the study company through an agreement with Yale University for occupational health consultation not directly related to this study.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.