Is noise-induced hearing loss still a public health problem after decades of legislation?

Are hearing protection devices used in the workplace really efficient? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The most common current hearing protection devices (HPDs) on the market include earplugs and earmuffs. A variety of materials can be used to manufacture these devices, and each offers a level of noise attenuation that is informed by the manufacturer although it does not always correspond to the attenuation observed in real-world use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the noise attenuation of HPDs available to workers exposed to noise.

METHODS

The most relevant studies originally published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that investigated the noise attenuation effectiveness of HPDs used by workers exposed to noise were analyzed. The following electronic databases were searched by 2 independent reviewers for studies published from 1999 to 2019: MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (OVID), ProQuest, and BVS-Bireme. Different combinations of the following search terms (MeSH terms) were used for all databases: "Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced", "Ear Protective Devices" (Efficacy OR Effectiveness)", "Noise, Occupational".

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded a total of 326 potentially relevant studies. After the removal of duplicates, 156 remained for the screening of titles and abstracts. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 46 studies were selected for full-text reading. Of these, six were included in this systematic review.

CONCLUSION

Hearing protection devices reduced the noise exposure and were effective in all included studies in different countries, types of activity, and sound pressure exposure.

Task force Guideline of Brazilian Society of Otology ‒ hearing loss in children - Part I ‒ Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the main evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hearing loss in children and adolescents aged 0 to 18 years.

METHODS

Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on childhood hearing loss were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians' guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association's guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions.

RESULTS

The evaluation and diagnosis of hearing loss: universal newborn hearing screening, laboratory testing, congenital infections (especially cytomegalovirus), genetic testing and main syndromes, radiologic imaging studies, vestibular assessment of children with hearing loss, auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and noise-induced hearing loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Every child with suspected hearing loss has the right to diagnosis and appropriate treatment if necessary. This task force considers 5 essential rights: (1) Otolaryngologist consultation; (2) Speech assessment and therapy; (3) Diagnostic tests; (4) Treatment; (5) Ophthalmologist consultation.

On the definition of noise

Urbanization has exposed people to extreme sound levels. Although researchers have investigated the ability of people to listen, analyze, and distinguish sound, the concept of noise has not been clearly articulated from a human perspective. The lack of knowledge on how people perceive noise limits our capacity to control it in a targeted manner. This study aimed to interpret the definition of noise from the public perspective based on a grounded theory approach. Seventy-eight participants were interviewed about noise, and four categories of perceived understanding of noise were identified: challenges, definitions of noise, opportunities, and action. As one of the challenges, urbanization is associated with increased noise levels around the human environment. In terms of definition, perceiving sound as noise is considered to be a result of the complex and dynamic process that includes sound, the environment, and humans. Sound and humans interact with the environment. In terms of opportunities, noise may have positive roles on certain occasions, dispelling the misconception that noise is exclusively negative. In addition, we found that noise perception has gradually shifted from noise control to noise utilization. In terms of action, noise can be controlled at the sound sources, susceptible target groups, susceptible behaviors and states, locations, and times where noise is perceived with high frequency. In this study, we investigated several aspects of noise, ranging from noise control, soundscape definition, and 'soundscape indices' (SSID) integration and application. Our findings provide an additional basis for developing better definitions, control, and utilization strategies of noise in the future, thereby improving the quality of the sound environment.

Five-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study Determines the Critical Intervals for Periodic Audiometric Testing Based on 5070 Tests of Metallurgical Workers Exposed and Nonexposed to Noise

OBJECTIVES

To compare the progression of 3-, 4-, and 6-kHz thresholds (pure-tone average) over 5 years and determine the most critical period for occupational risk among workers exposed and nonexposed to noise.

DESIGN

Metallurgical workers were divided into 2 groups: noise-exposed and non-noise-exposed groups. The 6 initial audiometric tests of each worker were analyzed as baseline test and annual tests 1 to 5.

RESULTS

A total of 845 workers were included, 748 in the noise-exposed group and 97 in the non-noise-exposed group, resulting in 5070 tests analyzed. The nonexposed group showed no significant difference in the mean pure-tone averages between any of the annual tests in either ear. In the exposed group, a significant difference was observed in mean pure-tone averages between baseline and Test1 (p = 0.001 right ear; p = 0.001 left ear), between Test3 and Test4 (p = 0.002 right ear; p = 0.005 left ear), and between Test4 and Test5 (p = 0.003 right ear; p = 0.001 left ear). There was no difference between Test1 and Test2 or between Test2 and Test3 in either ear.

CONCLUSIONS

The progression of pure-tone averages at 3, 4, and 6 kHz differed between workers exposed and nonexposed to noise. Noise-exposed workers had a significant progressive worsening of audiometric thresholds after 3 years of employment. This study identified, in an unprecedented way, two critical periods of noise exposure: in the first year and after the third year of employment in a noisy environment.

Is it necessary to perform occupational audiometric testing at 6-months of employment?

Introduction

Current Brazilian legislation requires that all workers exposed to noise are to be given an audiogram upon hiring, after 6 months of employment (first periodic test), and annually after the first periodic test. In other countries, the regulations of hearing conservation programs do not include the requirement for audiometric testing at 6 months of employment, but only annually. There is no evidence that the periodicity adopted by Brazilian legislation is the most appropriate.

Objective

The present study aimed to evaluate the first 3 occupational audiometric tests of workers exposed to noise.

Methods

Historical cohort study with cross-sectional analysis. Participants were all male metallurgy workers aged up to 40 years. The first 3 audiograms of each worker were analyzed: pre-employment audiometric test, periodic audiometric test 1, and periodic audiometric test 2. For each worker, mean frequency thresholds were calculated at 3, 4, and 6 kHz in the left and right ears for each test. Statistical analysis was performed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test.

Results

A total of 988 workers were included. There was a significant difference in auditory thresholds between the pre-employment test and the 2 subsequent periodic tests for the right and left ears. There was no significant difference between Test1 and Test2 in either ear.

Conclusion

Given the lack of difference between the first 2 periodic tests, we believe that they could be merged into a single test, i.e., first periodic audiometric testing could be performed at 12 months of employment without compromising workers’ health.