Perceived and measured hearing ability in construction laborers and farmers

Hearing Difficulties Among Farmworkers in the México-US Southwest Border Region

Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are a vulnerable population with a potentially high risk for hearing loss due to farm-related noise exposures. Occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is permanent, and it is associated with an increased risk for injuries on the job, as well as communication difficulties, isolation, and depression. The México/US border region is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country, however, no known studies have explored hearing loss among farmworkers in this area. This pilot study was a first step toward measuring and addressing hearing loss and noise exposure among this region's farmworkers. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence of subjective hearing difficulties among Yuma County, Arizona farmworkers. Survey interviews took place during a late-night farmworker health fair from 2 am to 6 am to accommodate local farms' labor schedules. Multivariable regression adjusted for demographic and work covariates estimated subjective hearing loss prevalence ratios. Among 132 farmworker participants, 36% reported they have or might have hearing loss, and 62% reported no hearing loss. Subjective hearing loss prevalence was lower in farmworkers who report not working in noise compared to prevalence in farmworkers who work in noise [prevalence ratio, 0.44 (95% CI 0.23-0.82)]. This report contributes to understanding the perception of hearing-related health and occupational exposures among farmworkers in the México-US Southwest border region. The information from this line of research will inform appropriate safety measures known to lower the risk of experiencing occupational NIHL.

Noise exposure and hearing loss among tractor drivers in India

BACKGROUND

Tractors emit high intensity noise and prolonged exposure to high intensity noise causes hearing loss to the drivers.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to measure noise intensity at the tractor drivers' ear level and hearing loss among tractor drivers.

METHODS

Noise intensity was measured on 6 models of tractors which were operated with 5 different tillage implements. In order to assess hearing loss, audiometric test was performed at 7 frequencies, i.e. 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz, among 30 tractor drivers and 30 control group subjects. All the selected tractor drivers and control group subjects were also interviewed to obtain personal information and noise exposure details.

RESULTS

The tractor drivers were exposed to noise intensity in the range of 91.7-97.5 dB(A). Audiogram analysis shows that the hearing threshold levels were significantly (p < 0.05) higher among the tractor drivers as compared with the control group subjects. The effect was significantly (p < 0.05) more on the left ear as compared with the right ear among the tractor drivers. Increase in age has significant (p < 0.05) effect on the hearing threshold levels on the left ear. Prevalence of high frequency hearing loss was 50% among tractor drivers as compared with 10% among control group subjects. Hearing loss was significantly (p < 0.05) more in the low frequency as compared with the high frequency among the tractor drivers.

CONCLUSION

Indian tractor operators are exposed to high noise levels which may result in hearing loss. It is recommended that hearing conservation programs should be initiated to prevent noise hazards and hearing loss among the tractor drivers.

A Comparison between a remote testing and a laboratory test setting for evaluating emotional responses to non-speech sounds

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate remote testing as a tool for measuring emotional responses to non-speech sounds.

DESIGN

Participants self-reported their hearing status and rated valence and arousal in response to non-speech sounds on an Internet crowdsourcing platform. These ratings were compared to data obtained in a laboratory setting with participants who had confirmed normal or impaired hearing.

STUDY SAMPLE

Adults with normal and impaired hearing.

RESULTS

In both settings, participants with hearing loss rated pleasant sounds as less pleasant than did their peers with normal hearing. The difference in valence ratings between groups was generally smaller when measured in the remote setting than in the laboratory setting. This difference was the result of participants with normal hearing rating sounds as less extreme (less pleasant, less unpleasant) in the remote setting than did their peers in the laboratory setting, whereas no such difference was noted for participants with hearing loss. Ratings of arousal were similar from participants with normal and impaired hearing; the similarity persisted in both settings.

CONCLUSIONS

In both test settings, participants with hearing loss rated pleasant sounds as less pleasant than did their normal hearing counterparts. Future work is warranted to explain the ratings of participants with normal hearing.

Hearing Difficulties and Tinnitus in Construction, Agricultural, Music, and Finance Industries: Contributions of Demographic, Health, and Lifestyle Factors

High levels of occupational noise exposure increase the risk of hearing difficulties and tinnitus. However, differences in demographic, health, and lifestyle factors could also contribute to high levels of hearing difficulties and tinnitus in some industries. Data from a subsample (n = 22,936) of the U.K. Biobank were analyzed to determine to what extent differences in levels of hearing difficulties and tinnitus in high-risk industries (construction, agricultural, and music) compared with low-risk industries (finance) could be attributable to demographic, health, and lifestyle factors, rather than occupational noise exposure. Hearing difficulties were identified using a digits-in-noise speech recognition test. Tinnitus was identified based on self-report. Logistic regression analyses showed that occupational noise exposure partially accounted for higher levels of hearing difficulties in the agricultural industry compared with finance, and occupational noise exposure, older age, low socioeconomic status, and non-White ethnic background partially accounted for higher levels of hearing difficulties in the construction industry. However, the factors assessed in the model did not fully account for the increased likelihood of hearing difficulties in high-risk industries, suggesting that there are additional unknown factors which impact on hearing or that there was insufficient measurement of factors included in the model. The levels of tinnitus were greatest for music and construction industries compared with finance, and these differences were accounted for by occupational and music noise exposure, as well as older age. These findings emphasize the need to promote hearing conservation in occupational and music settings, with a particular focus on high-risk demographic subgroups.

Sociodemographic correlates of occupational, recreational and firearm noise exposure among adults in the USA

OBJECTIVE

To determine sociodemographic factors associated with occupational, recreational and firearm-related noise exposure.

METHODS

This nationally representative, multistage, stratified, cluster cross-sectional study sampled eligible National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants aged 20-69 years (n = 4675) about exposure to occupational and recreational noise and recurrent firearm usage, using a weighted multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-four per cent of participants had exposure to occupational noise and 12 per cent to recreational noise, and 13 per cent repeatedly used firearms. Males were more likely than females to have exposure to all three noise types (adjusted odds ratio range = 2.63-14.09). Hispanics and Asians were less likely to have exposure to the three noise types than Whites. Blacks were less likely than Whites to have occupational and recurrent firearm noise exposure. Those with insurance were 26 per cent less likely to have exposure to occupational noise than those without insurance (adjusted odds ratio = 0.74, 95 per cent confidence interval = 0.60-0.93).

CONCLUSION

Whites, males and uninsured people are more likely to have exposure to potentially hazardous loud noise.

Hearing Loss in Agricultural Workers Exposed to Pesticides and Noise

Agricultural workers who have concurrent exposure to pesticides and noise are at increased risk of hearing loss. We recruited 163 Thai conventional and 172 organic farmers to answer our questionnaires about personal demographics, agricultural activities, and pesticide and agricultural machinery use. This information was used to calculate the years of conventional (pesticide use) farming and the years of agricultural noise exposure, and to estimate semiquantitative metrics for pesticide exposure (cumulative intensity score-years) and cumulative noise exposure (dB(A)-years) for each conventional farmer. All participants underwent pure tone audiometric testing. The mean hearing threshold in the low-frequency band (0.5-2 kHz) and high-frequency band (3-6 kHz) were used for analysis. Years involved in conventional farming and years using agricultural machinery were associated with an increase in the average hearing threshold for the high-frequency band after controlling for age, ever exposed to industrial noise and cigarette smoking. The highest category of cumulative insecticide exposure (score-years), cumulative organophosphates exposure (score-years) and cumulative noise exposure (dB(A)-years) were also associated with an increased high-frequency band hearing threshold among conventional farmers. Results from the full cohort and the subcohort of conventional farmers support each other and the hypothesis that pesticide and noise have an additive effect on hearing, since no model interactions were significant.

Noise and Hearing Protection

This study explored Latino construction workers' experiences with occupational noise and hearing protection to provide qualitative data to be used in designing an intervention to prevent noise-induced hearing loss. An ecological framework provided the theoretical foundation for this study. Fifteen Latino construction workers participated in one of four focus groups exploring perceptions of exposure to noise on the job and barriers to and supports for wearing hearing protection. Support for an ecological framework was apparent in the environmental and personal factors revealed in the data: how it feels, personal responsibility, they make us wear it, we don't care about ears, it won't happen to me, being Latino, keeping our jobs, hearing protection is uncomfortable, and we can handle it. Researchers are applying results of this study in the development of a hearing conservation intervention for Latino construction workers to be evaluated in a randomized, controlled trial.

A comparison of an audiometric screening survey with an in-depth research questionnaire for hearing loss and hearing loss risk factors

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the reliability of a hearing risk factor screening survey used by hearing conservation programmes for noise-exposed workers.

DESIGN

We compared workers' answers from the screening survey to their answers to a confidential research questionnaire regarding hearing loss risk factors. We calculated kappa statistics to test the correlation between yes/no questions in the research questionnaire compared to answers from 1 and 5 years of screening surveys.

STUDY SAMPLE

We compared the screening survey and research questionnaire answers of 274 aluminum plant workers.

RESULTS

Most of the questions in the in-company screening survey showed fair to moderate agreement with the research questionnaire (kappa range: -0.02, 0.57). Workers' answers to the screening survey had better correlation with the research questionnaire when we compared 5 years of screening answers. For nearly all questions, workers were more likely to respond affirmatively on the research questionnaire than the screening survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing conservation programmes should be aware that workers may underreport hearing loss risk factors and functional hearing status on an audiometric screening survey. Validating company screening tools could help provide more accurate information on hearing loss and risk factors.

Predictive factors of occupational noise-induced hearing loss in Spanish workers: A prospective study

The purpose of our study was to identify the main factors associated with objective noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), as indicated by abnormal audiometric testing, in Spanish workers exposed to occupational noise in the construction industry. We carried out a prospective study in Tenerife, Spain, using 150 employees exposed to occupational noise and 150 age-matched controls who were not working in noisy environments. The variables analyzed included sociodemographic data, noise-related factors, types of hearing protection, self-report hearing loss, and auditory-related symptoms (e.g., tinnitus, vertigo). Workers with pathological audiograms had significantly longer noise-exposure duration (16.2 ± 11.4 years) relative to those with normal audiograms (10.2 ± 7.0 years; t = 3.99, P < 0.001). The vast majority of those who never used hearing protection measures had audiometric abnormalities (94.1%). Additionally, workers using at least one of the protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) had significantly more audiometric abnormalities than those using both protection measures simultaneously (Chi square = 16.07; P < 0.001). The logistic regression analysis indicates that the use of hearing protection measures [odds ratio (OR) = 12.30, confidence interval (CI) = 4.36-13.81, P < 0.001], and noise-exposure duration (OR = 1.35, CI = 1.08-1.99, P = 0.040) are significant predictors of NIHL. This regression model correctly predicted 78.2% of individuals with pathological audiograms. The combined use of hearing protection measures, in particular earplugs and earmuffs, associates with a lower rate of audiometric abnormalities in subjects with high occupational noise exposure. The use of hearing protection measures at work and noise-exposure duration are best predictive factors of NIHL. Auditory-related symptoms and self-report hearing loss do not represent good indicators of objective NIHL. Routine monitoring of noise levels and hearing status are of great importance as part of effective hearing conservation programs.

Avaliação do sistema auditivo em agricultores expostos à agrotóxicos

Objetivos avaliar o sistema auditivo periférico, por meio de audiometria tonal, em agricultores residentes em área de intenso uso de agrotóxicos no Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Métodos foram avaliados 70 indivíduos, de ambos os gêneros, moradores de Campos dos Goytacazes, com idade variando entre 25 e 59 anos, sendo 35 agricultores e 35 não agricultores. Todos os indivíduos tiveram sua audição periférica avaliada, por meio de audiometria tonal nas frequências de 250, 500, 1.000, 2.000, 3.000, 4.000, 6.000 e 8.000Hz. Foram excluídos indivíduos com alteração de orelha externa e média e/ou com alguma queixa otológica. Além disso, foi realizada anamnese com questões relacionadas à saúde, situação sócio-econômica, educação e exposição ao agrotóxico. Foi considerada perda auditiva, os limiares maiores ou iguais a 25dB em qualquer das frequências testadas. Resultados o Odds Ratio de perda auditiva foi 3,67 vezes (IC95%: 2,08-6,48) maior entre agricultores (94,3%), quando comparados aos não agricultores (25,7%). Além disso, a maior parte das alterações auditivas foi observada nas frequências mais agudas. Conclusão o presente estudo sugere que a atividade agrícola e possivelmente a exposição a agrotóxicos aumenta o risco de perda auditiva.

10-Year prospective study of noise exposure and hearing damage among construction workers

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the effects of noise exposure, including intermittent and peaky exposure, on hearing damage as assessed by standard pure-tone thresholds and otoacoustic emissions, a longitudinal study was conducted on newly hired construction apprentices and controls over a 10-year period.

METHODS

Among the 456 subjects recruited at baseline, 316 had at least two (mean 4.6) examinations and were included in this analysis. Annual examinations included hearing threshold levels (HTLs) for air conducted pure tones and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) amplitudes. Task-based occupational noise exposure levels and recreational exposures were estimated. Linear mixed models were fit for HTLs and DPOAEs at 3, 4 and 6 kHz in relation to time since baseline and average noise level since baseline, while controlling for hearing level at baseline and other risk factors.

RESULTS

Estimated L(EQ) noise exposures were 87±3.6 dBA among the construction workers. Linear mixed modelling demonstrated significant exposure-related elevations in HTL of about 2-3 dB over a projected 10-year period at 3, 4 or 6 kHz for a 10 dB increase in exposure. The DPOAE models (using L1=40) predicted about 1 dB decrease in emission amplitude over 10 years for a 10 dB increase in exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides evidence of noise-induced damage at an average exposure level around the 85 dBA level. The predicted change in HTLs was somewhat higher than would be predicted by standard hearing loss models, after accounting for hearing loss at baseline. Limited evidence for an enhanced effect of high peak component noise was observed, and DPOAEs, although similarly affected, showed no advantage over standard hearing threshold evaluation in detecting effects of noise on the ear and hearing.

Research to practice in occupational health nursing

Occupational health nursing research has gained a significant place in national and international nursing programs and has advanced occupational health nurses' understanding of the most effective ways to prevent occupational illness and injury, provide access to quality care for workers, and manage occupational injuries and return to work. This article describes the history of nursing research in general and highlights the current national shortages that must be addressed to ensure that nurses continue to impact the field. Occupational health nursing priorities are described and examples are given of nurse scientists who have established the foundation of occupational health nursing research and who illustrate varied expertise and the interdisciplinary context in which the work is conducted.

Longitudinal assessment of noise exposure in a cohort of construction workers

OBJECTIVES

To address questions surrounding noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) from variable noise, we have been evaluating noise exposures and changes in hearing in a prospective cohort of construction workers (representing eight trades) and controls. In this paper, we develop and explore several long-term exposure estimates for cohort members.

METHODS

We followed cohort members between 1999 and 2009 and interviewed them approximately annually to obtain a detailed work history for the previous subject-interval while also collecting tests of hearing sensitivity. Over the same period, we also collected a sample of full-shift average noise measurements and activity information. We used data from these two sources to develop various exposure estimates for each subject for specific subject intervals and for the duration of the study. These estimates included work duration, trade-mean (TM)-equivalent continuous exposure level (L(EQ)), task-based (TB) L(EQ), a hybrid L(EQ) combining TB and subjective information, and an estimate of noise exposure 'peakiness'.

RESULTS

Of the 456 subjects enrolled in the study, 333 had at least 2 interviews and met several inclusion criteria related to hearing sensitivity. Depending on the metric used, between one-third and three-quarters of 1310 measured full-shift noise exposures exceeded permissible and recommended exposure limits. Hybrid and TB exposure estimates demonstrated much greater variability than TM estimates. Work duration and estimates of exposure peakiness showed poor agreement with average exposures, suggesting that these metrics evaluate different aspects of exposure and may have different predictive value for estimating NIHL.

CONCLUSIONS

Construction workers in the cohort had subject-interval and study-average exposures which present a substantial potential risk of NIHL. In a subsequent paper, we will use these estimates to evaluate the exposure-response relationship between noise and NIHL.

Ethnic, racial, and gender variations in health among farm operators in the United States

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to collect baseline prevalence data on the health problems faced by minority, white, and female farm operators.

METHODS

An occupational health survey of farm operators was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service between February and August 2000. A stratified random sample of farm operators from 50 U.S. states based on the 1997 Census of Agriculture was selected for telephone interview. Interviews were primarily conducted using a computer assisted telephone instrument system.

RESULTS

Population prevalences were calculated for 7137 farm operators. Prevalences were greatest for musculoskeletal discomfort, followed by respiratory problems, hearing loss, and hypertension. Generally, Latino and Asian American operators had lower prevalences for health problems than white non-Latino and white operators, respectively. African-American operators had greater prevalences for hypertension, and osteoarthritis, but lower prevalences for hearing loss, skin problems, heart problems, and cancer than white operators. American Indian or Alaska Native operators had higher prevalences for musculoskeletal problems, skin problems, and hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalences for the different ethnicity and race groups are not the same. Studies that combine racial and ethnic groups, or study only white and non-Latino farm operators may overestimate or underestimate the prevalence of health conditions in the entire farm operator population.

Hearing difficulty attributable to employment by industry and occupation: an analysis of the National Health Interview Survey--United States, 1997 to 2003

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the national burden of hearing difficulty among workers in US industries and occupations.

METHODS

Data on 130,102 employed National Health Interview Survey respondents between the ages of 18 to 65 years who were interviewed between 1997 and 2003 were analyzed to estimate the population prevalence, adjusted prevalence ratios, and fractions of hearing difficulty attributable to employment.

RESULTS

The estimated population prevalence of hearing difficulty was 11.4% (24% attributable to employment). The adjusted prevalence ratios of hearing difficulty were highest for railroads, mining, and primary metal manufacturing industry. Occupations with increased risk of hearing difficulty were mechanics/repairers, machine operators, and transportation equipment operators.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing difficulty was differentially distributed across various industries. In industries with high rates, employers and workers should take preventive action to reduce the risk of occupational hearing loss.

Hearing loss in migrant agricultural workers

BACKGROUND

Farmers have high rates of hearing loss, yet little is known about the hearing status of migrant agricultural workers. We performed a cross-sectional survey to assess the prevalence and impact of hearing loss in this population.

METHODS

One hundred fifty migrant and seasonal agricultural workers were surveyed at a series of health fairs held at migrant camps. A bilingual questionnaire included items related to hearing loss risk factors and subjective hearing difficulties. Pure tone audiometry and tympanometry were performed in a mobile testing van.

RESULTS

More than half the subjects had some degree of hearing loss at audiometric frequencies between 500 and 6,000 Hz, especially in the higher frequencies. Hispanic males in the sample had significantly greater prevalence of high-frequency hearing loss compared to adults in the national Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES). More than 35% of respondents complained of subjective difficulty hearing or understanding speech, yet no workers reported use of hearing aids. Even after adjusting for measured hearing loss, Hispanic farm workers were more likely than their English- speaking counterparts to complain of difficulty hearing or understanding speech, suggesting that language barriers could worsen the impact of hearing loss. Risk factors for hearing loss included age and abnormal tympanometry. Occupational exposures to noise from tractors and other machinery as well as pesticides were frequently reported, while use of hearing protection was rare.

CONCLUSION

Hearing loss is a significant and under-recognized problem in the migrant worker population. Further preventive and treatment efforts are warranted.

Physician hearing loss

PURPOSE

Hearing is an important sense for physicians, making communication and stethoscope use possible, yet not much is known about the impact of hearing loss on professional function. The purpose of this study was to explore hearing-related issues affecting physicians.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We administered a hearing test and questionnaire to 107 physicians and medical students.

RESULTS

The proportion of physicians reporting trouble with their hearing increased with age, reaching almost 100% in those older than 60 years. Audiometric hearing loss also increased with age. Perceived hearing trouble was significantly associated with audiometric hearing loss, yet 46% of physicians with hearing loss described their hearing as good. Older physicians more frequently reported difficulty communicating with patients, staff, and colleagues owing to hearing problems (P = .007). Reported stethoscope difficulties did not significantly increase with age; there was no association with hearing thresholds. No physician reported use of electronic stethoscopes or hearing aids. Noise exposures were common, yet 51% of respondents never used hearing protection. Younger physicians were less likely to use protection (P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Physicians lose hearing with age but may not notice or report the loss. Physician hearing loss is associated with difficulty communicating with patients, staff, and colleagues. Neither age nor hearing level predicts problems with stethoscope use; possible explanations include a training effect or denial. Many physicians, especially younger ones, never use hearing protection around noise. Strategies to recognize and reduce the impact of hearing loss on professional function throughout a physician's career deserve greater attention.

A Comparison of Self-Reported Hearing and Pure Tone Threshold Average in the Iowa Farm Family Health and Hazard Survey

BACKGROUND

Self-reported hearing measures are useful for surveying hearing loss in a population because they are short, and easy to administer by either questionnaire or telephone. This study aims to assess the performance of several self-reported hearing measures to identify hearing loss in a group of Iowa farmers.

METHODS

The study subjects were 98 male farmers who participated in the Iowa Farm Family Health and Hazard Survey. We tested three self-reported hearing measures; the hearing screening questions, the Rating Scale for Each Ear (RSEE), and the Health, Education and Welfare-Expanded Hearing Ability Scale (HEW-EHAS), which were originally developed and implemented in the National Health Interview Survey. The sensitivity and specificity of the self-reported hearing measures were assessed by comparing them with pure tone threshold averages. These sensitivity and specificity measures were compared between younger and older age groups.

RESULTS

The sensitivities of the screening questions, RSEE, and HEW-EHAS were 73.0%, 66.7%, and 53.3%, respectively. The specificities of the self-reported hearing measures were similar, which ranged from 81.4% to 84.8%. The sensitivities of the self-reported hearing measures were higher in the younger age group while the specificities were higher in the older age group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the use of simple screening questions in identifying hearing loss among farmers.

Hearing loss as a risk factor for agricultural injuries

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggested that hearing impairment based on self-report might increase the risk of agricultural injuries. However, self-reported hearing measures may be subject to inaccuracy and subjective perception. We assessed the association of agricultural injuries with hearing loss and other hearing characteristics using measured hearing.

METHODS

Study subjects were 150 farmers who participated in the Iowa Certified Safe Farm study. Injury information was collected by telephone interviews at 2-5 month intervals from September 1999 to October 2002. Hearing levels were measured annually using the pure tone audiometry from 1998 to 2002. Adjusted rate ratios of injuries were calculated using the multivariate Poisson regression model.

RESULTS

Hearing loss in the better ear (RR = 1.62), hearing asymmetry (RR = 1.67), and fair/poor self-reported hearing (RR = 1.96) were significantly associated with the risk of agricultural injuries. It is notable that self-reported hearing might be a stronger predictor of injuries than pure tone audiometry (PTA). Exposure to noise elevated the risk of injuries in those farmers with hearing loss or hearing asymmetry. The occasional use of hearing protection was significantly associated with agricultural injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds substantial evidence that hearing loss acts as a risk for agricultural injuries. Prevention of hearing loss and noise exposure may be important in reducing the burden of agricultural injuries.