Hearing difficulty and tinnitus among U.S. workers and non-workers in 2007

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2009. Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing disorders. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; and OSH UPDATE to 3 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) of non-clinical interventions under field conditions among workers to prevent or reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. We also collected uncontrolled case studies of engineering controls about the effect on noise exposure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We categorised interventions as engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies. One study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure in a 12-year time-series analysis but there were no controlled studies on engineering controls for noise exposure. Eleven studies with 3725 participants evaluated effects of personal hearing protection devices and 17 studies with 84,028 participants evaluated effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs). Effects on noise exposure Engineering interventions following legislationOne ITS study found that new legislation in the mining industry reduced the median personal noise exposure dose in underground coal mining by 27.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) -36.1 to -19.3 percentage points) immediately after the implementation of stricter legislation. This roughly translates to a 4.5 dB(A) decrease in noise level. The intervention was associated with a favourable but statistically non-significant downward trend in time of the noise dose of -2.1 percentage points per year (95% CI -4.9 to 0.7, 4 year follow-up, very low-quality evidence). Engineering intervention case studiesWe found 12 studies that described 107 uncontrolled case studies of immediate reductions in noise levels of machinery ranging from 11.1 to 19.7 dB(A) as a result of purchasing new equipment, segregating noise sources or installing panels or curtains around sources. However, the studies lacked long-term follow-up and dose measurements of workers, and we did not use these studies for our conclusions. Hearing protection devicesIn general hearing protection devices reduced noise exposure on average by about 20 dB(A) in one RCT and three CBAs (57 participants, low-quality evidence). Two RCTs showed that, with instructions for insertion, the attenuation of noise by earplugs was 8.59 dB better (95% CI 6.92 dB to 10.25 dB) compared to no instruction (2 RCTs, 140 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Administrative controls: information and noise exposure feedbackOn-site training sessions did not have an effect on personal noise-exposure levels compared to information only in one cluster-RCT after four months' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.14 dB; 95% CI -2.66 to 2.38). Another arm of the same study found that personal noise exposure information had no effect on noise levels (MD 0.30 dB(A), 95% CI -2.31 to 2.91) compared to no such information (176 participants, low-quality evidence). Effects on hearing loss Hearing protection devicesIn two studies the authors compared the effect of different devices on temporary threshold shifts at short-term follow-up but reported insufficient data for analysis. In two CBA studies the authors found no difference in hearing loss from noise exposure above 89 dB(A) between muffs and earplugs at long-term follow-up (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03 ), very low-quality evidence). Authors of another CBA study found that wearing hearing protection more often resulted in less hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Combination of interventions: hearing loss prevention programmesOne cluster-RCT found no difference in hearing loss at three- or 16-year follow-up between an intensive HLPP for agricultural students and audiometry only. One CBA study found no reduction of the rate of hearing loss (MD -0.82 dB per year (95% CI -1.86 to 0.22) for a HLPP that provided regular personal noise exposure information compared to a programme without this information.There was very-low-quality evidence in four very long-term studies, that better use of hearing protection devices as part of a HLPP decreased the risk of hearing loss compared to less well used hearing protection in HLPPs (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69). Other aspects of the HLPP such as training and education of workers or engineering controls did not show a similar effect.In three long-term CBA studies, workers in a HLPP had a statistically non-significant 1.8 dB (95% CI -0.6 to 4.2) greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than non-exposed workers and the confidence interval includes the 4.2 dB which is the level of hearing loss resulting from 5 years of exposure to 85 dB(A). In addition, of three other CBA studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis, two showed an increased risk of hearing loss in spite of the protection of a HLPP compared to non-exposed workers and one CBA did not.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Controlled studies of other engineering control interventions in the field have not been conducted. There is moderate-quality evidence that training of proper insertion of earplugs significantly reduces noise exposure at short-term follow-up but long-term follow-up is still needed.There is very low-quality evidence that the better use of hearing protection devices as part of HLPPs reduces the risk of hearing loss, whereas for other programme components of HLPPs we did not find such an effect. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. Rather, it means that further research is very likely to have an important impact.

Current insights in noise-induced hearing loss: a literature review of the underlying mechanism, pathophysiology, asymmetry, and management options

BACKGROUND

Noise-induced hearing loss is one of the most common forms of sensorineural hearing loss, is a major health problem, is largely preventable and is probably more widespread than revealed by conventional pure tone threshold testing. Noise-induced damage to the cochlea is traditionally considered to be associated with symmetrical mild to moderate hearing loss with associated tinnitus; however, there is a significant number of patients with asymmetrical thresholds and, depending on the exposure, severe to profound hearing loss as well.

MAIN BODY

Recent epidemiology and animal studies have provided further insight into the pathophysiology, clinical findings, social and economic impacts of noise-induced hearing loss. Furthermore, it is recently shown that acoustic trauma is associated with vestibular dysfunction, with associated dizziness that is not always measurable with current techniques. Deliberation of the prevalence, treatment and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss is important and timely. Currently, prevention and protection are the first lines of defence, although promising protective effects are emerging from multiple different pharmaceutical agents, such as steroids, antioxidants and neurotrophins.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a comprehensive update on the pathophysiology, investigations, prevalence of asymmetry, associated symptoms, and current strategies on the prevention and treatment of noise-induced hearing loss.

Prevalence of Hazardous Occupational Noise Exposure, Hearing Loss, and Hearing Protection Usage Among a Representative Sample of Working Canadians

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of hearing loss (HL), self-reported occupational noise exposure, and hearing protection usage among Canadians.

METHODS

In-person household interviews were conducted with 3666 participants, aged 16 to 79 years (1811 males) with 94% completing audiometry and distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) evaluations. Occupational noise exposure was defined as hazardous when communicating with coworkers at an arm's length distance required speaking in a raised voice.

RESULTS

An estimated 42% of respondents reported hazardous occupational noise exposure; 10 years or more was associated with HL regardless of age, sex or education. Absent DPOAEs, tinnitus, and the Wilson audiometric notch were significantly more prevalent in hazardous workplace noise-exposed workers than in nonexposed. When mandatory, 80% reported wearing hearing protection.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings are consistent with other industrialized countries, underscoring the need for ongoing awareness of noise-induced occupational HL.

Hearing Impairment Among Noise-Exposed Workers - United States, 2003-2012

Hearing loss is the third most common chronic physical condition in the United States, and is more prevalent than diabetes or cancer (1). Occupational hearing loss, primarily caused by high noise exposure, is the most common U.S. work-related illness (2). Approximately 22 million U.S. workers are exposed to hazardous occupational noise (3). CDC compared the prevalence of hearing impairment within nine U.S. industry sectors using 1,413,789 noise-exposed worker audiograms from CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Occupational Hearing Loss Surveillance Project (4). CDC estimated the prevalence at six hearing impairment levels, measured in the better ear, and the impact on quality of life expressed as annual disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), as defined by the 2013 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study (5). The mining sector had the highest prevalence of workers with any hearing impairment, and with moderate or worse impairment, followed by the construction and manufacturing sectors. Hearing loss prevention, and early detection and intervention to avoid additional hearing loss, are critical to preserve worker quality of life.