Advertisement

Acoustics Australia

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 67–75 | Cite as

Uncovering Effective Strategies for Hearing Loss Prevention

  • Thais C. Morata
  • Deanna Meinke
Technical Note

Abstract

Occupational health agencies, researchers, and policy makers have recognized the need for evidence on the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce or prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. While many workplaces comply with legal or obligatory requirements and implement recommended interventions, few publications exist documenting the effectiveness of these actions. Additionally, some workplaces have discovered through their own processes, novel ways to reduce the risk of injury. Peer-reviewed information on the effectiveness of the many strategies and approaches currently in use could help correct weaknesses, or further encourage their adoption and expansion. The evaluation of intervention effectiveness would certainly contribute to improved worker health and safety. This need is particularly relevant regarding noise exposure in the workplace and hearing loss prevention interventions. In a 2006 review of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Hearing Loss Research Program, the independent National Academies of Sciences recommended that NIOSH place greater emphasis on identifying the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention measures on the basis of outcomes that are as closely related as possible to reducing noise exposure and work-related hearing loss (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11721). NIOSH used two different approaches to address that recommendation: the first one was to conduct research, including broad systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss. The second was to create an award program, the Safe-In-Sound Excellence in Hearing Loss Prevention Award\(^{\mathrm{TM}}\), to identify and honor excellent real-world examples of noise control and other hearing loss prevention practices and innovations.

Keywords

Evidence-based practice Noise control Buy-Quiet Intervention effectiveness Hearing conservation Incentive program Award 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclaimer

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    International Standard Organisation: ISO 1999: Acoustics–determination of occupational noise exposure and estimation of noise-induced hearing impairment. ISO, Geneva (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization—Report of the First Informal Consultation on Future Programme Developments for the Prevention of Deafness and Hearing Impairment, World Health Organization, Geneva (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nelson, D.I., Nelson, R.Y., Concha-Barrientos, M., Fingerhut, M.: The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Am. J. Ind. Med. 48, 446–458 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suter, A.H.: Development of standards and regulations for occupational noise. In: Crocker, M.J. (ed.) Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control, pp. 377–382. John Wiley and Sons, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fausti, S.A., Wilmington, D.J., Helt, P.V., Helt, W.J., Konrad-Martin, D.: Hearing health and care: the need for improved hearing loss prevention and hearing conservation practices. J. Rehab. Res. Dev. 42(S2), 45–62 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daniell, W.E., Swan, S.S., McDaniel, M.M., Camp, J.E., Cohen, M.A., et al.: Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States. Occup. Environ. Med. 63, 343–351 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies, H., Marion, S., Teschke, K.: The impact of hearing conservation programs on incidence of noise-induced hearing loss in Canadian workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 51, 923–931 (2008). doi: 10.1002/ajim.20634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verbeek, J.H., Kateman, E., Morata, T.C., Dreschler, W.A., Mischke, C.: Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 10, CD006396 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suter, A.H.: The hearing conservation amendment: 25 years later. Noise Health. 11, 2–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trabeau, M., Neitzel, R., Meischke, H., Daniel, W.E., Seixas, N.S.: A comparison of “Train-the-Trainer” and expert training modalities for hearing protection use in construction. Am. J. Ind. Med. 51, 130–137 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caporali Filho, S.A., Niezen, C., Pérez, F., de Visscher, S.: Economically feasible noise exposure reduction in an oral hygiene products manufacturing plant. Braz. Occup. Hyg. Assoc. J. 6, 12–18 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heyer, N., Morata, T.C., Pinkerton, L.E., Brueck, S.E., Stancescu, D., Panaccio, M.P., Kim, H., Sinclair, J.S., Waters, M.A., Estill, C.F., Franks, J.R.: Use of historical data and a novel metric in the evaluation of the effectiveness of hearing conservation program components. Occup. Environ. Med. Jul. 68, 510–517 (2011). doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.053801. Epub 2010 Nov 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan, K.S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., Antes, G.: Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R Soc. Med. 96, 118–121 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S. (editors) (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 17 September 2015
  15. 15.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47, Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. (2002). http://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/strengthsum.pdf. Accessed 24 September 2015
  16. 16.
    Institute of Medicine. IOM Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, Institute of Medicine. (2011). http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx. Accessed 17 September 2015
  17. 17.
    El Dib, R.P., Mathew, J.L., Martins, R.H.G.: Interventions to promote the wearing of hearing protection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (2012). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005234.pub5
  18. 18.
    Hozo, S., Djulbegovic, B., Hozo, I.: Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range and the size of a sample. BMC Med. Res. Method 5, 13–13 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D.R., Altman, D.G., Pocock, S.J., Evans, S.J.W.: Reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials. JAMA 295, 1152–1160 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tait, R., Walker, D.: Motivating the workforce the value of external health and safety awards. J. Safety Res. 31, 243–251 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAfee, R.B., Winn, A.R.: The use of incentives/feedback to enhance work place safety: a critique of the literature. J. Safety Res. 20, 7–19 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hertz, H.S., Reimann, C.W., Bostwick, M.C.: The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award concept: could it help stimulate or accelerate health care quality improvement? Qual. Manag. Health care 2, 63–72 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noble, J.: The Codman competition: rewarding excellence in performance measurement. Jt Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 32, 634–640 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scott, S.D., Bertsche, P.K.: OSHA’s voluntary protection programs. The benefits to occupational health nurses and their companies. AAOHN J. 39, 219–224 (1991)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    United States General Accounting Office Workplace Safety and Health, (2004), pp 10–34. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04378.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2015
  26. 26.
    Singapore Government. Workplace Safety and Health Council (2015). Workplace Safety and Health Awards. http://www.wshc.sg. Accessed 06 November 2015
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Su, T.S., Tsai, W.Y., Yu, Y.C.: An integrated approach for improving occupational health and safety management: the voluntary protection program in Taiwan. J. Occup. Health 47, 270–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    WorkCover New South Wales WorkCover New South Wales Awards. New South Wales Government. http://www.safeworkawards.com.au. Accessed 6 November 2015
  30. 30.
    Safe Work Australia. Work health and safety awards. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/media-events/awards/pages/awards. Accessed 29 December 2015
  31. 31.
    Institute of Noise Control Engineering INCE Honors and Awards. http://www.inceusa.org/about/awards
  32. 32.
    Deutsches Institut für Gütesicherung und Kennzeichnung. Der Blaue Engel (The Blue Angel). https://www.blauer-engel.de/en. Accessed 6 November 2015
  33. 33.
    Worksafe Victoria. Worksafe Victoria Awards. Melbourne. http://worksafeawards.worksafe.vic.gov.au/. Accessed 6 November 2015
  34. 34.
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Awards https://osha.europa.eu/en/healthy-workplaces-campaigns/awards. Accessed 6 November 2015
  35. 35.
    Conseil National du Bruit, les Décibels d’Or. http://www.bruit.fr/concours-des-decibels-d-or-le-palmares-2014.html. Accessed 6 November 2015
  36. 36.
    Meinke, D.K., Morata, T.C.: Awarding and promoting excellence in hearing loss prevention. Int. J. Audiol. 51(S1), 63–70 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Acoustical Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Applied Research and TechnologyNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Audiology and Speech-Language SciencesUniversity of Northern ColoradoGreeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations