Prevalence and risk factors of hearing loss using the korean working conditions survey

Background and Objectives

The hearing loss of workers can occur when they are affected by age, otologic disease, and work-related risks such as noise and chemicals. Based on the Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS) in 2010, this research aimed to estimate the prevalence rate of hearing loss and to identify the risk factors affecting its occurrence.

Subjects and Methods

The subjects were 10019 employees who completed an interview conducted as part of KWCS in 2010. The prevalence rate of hearing loss according to sex, age, education, income, smoking, drinking, hypertension, industrial type, occupations, employment status, working period, and hazards at the workplace were assessed. The factors that could affect the occurrence of hearing loss were investigated based on a logistic regression analysis.

Results

The prevalence rate of hearing loss was 2.7%. In a logistic multivariate analysis, sex, age, occupations, working period, noise, and exposure to chemicals showed statistically significant correlations to the occurrence of hearing loss. The adjusted odd ratios were as follows: 1.74 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-2.96] for males, 2.11 (95% CI, 1.14-3.89) for those in their 40s, 2.24 (95% CI, 1.19-4.20) for those in their 50s, 2.21 (95% CI, 1.18-4.15) for manage/professional works, 2.73 (95% CI, 1.69-4.41) for manufacturing, 2.07 (95% CI, 1.36-3.15) for those who have worked for more than 20 years, 1.72 (95% CI, 1.14-2.58) for noise exposure, 1.53 (95% CI, 1.02-2.30) for vibration exposure and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.11-2.24) for chemical exposure.

Conclusions

The overall occupational and non-occupational risk factors related to employees' hearing loss were reviewed. In addition to the exposure to noise, occupational risks of hearing loss, such as isolated exposure to vibration and chemicals, and combined exposure to noise and these hazards, were identified. Multiple exposure to hazards, along with prolonged noise exposure increased the risk of hearing loss.

Personal and social conditions potentially influencing women's hearing loss management

Little gender-specific data related to hearing loss and hearing loss management are available. The purpose of this investigation was to examine personal and social conditions affecting women at selected stages of the adult life course that may influence hearing loss management. In all, 191 women in three age groups, ranging from 35 to 85 years old, participated. None reported hearing problems. Participants completed a demographic data form and were given a standard audiometric evaluation to confirm age-normal hearing. Each completed assessments of speech understanding in quiet and noise, auditory signal duration discrimination, and binaural processing. Measures of hearing knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes; health-related locus of control; ego strength; and, social support were administered. Results revealed that although some variables deteriorate among subsequent age groups (i.e., hearing thresholds, central auditory processing, and ego strength), the reverse is true for others (i.e., social interaction and satisfaction with income). Age-specific sociodemographic burdens that may interfere with hearing loss management were noted. New psychosocial data are revealed against which women and men with impaired hearing may be compared.

Older adult performance on the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired: gender difference

Gender difference in auditory function with age is well documented. However, little is known about the influence of interacting sensory, psycho-social, and economic variables on adjustment to hearing loss. Adjustment to acquired, mild-to-moderate hearing loss by advantaged older women and men was examined using the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI) (Demorest & Erdman, 1987). Correlational analyses revealed relationships between scales to be similar for women and men. Controlling for socio-demographic and hearing variables, group responses for the majority of CPHI scales did not differ significantly. Six scales differed significantly, and those results are discussed. When compared to men, women assigned greater importance to effective social communication, were more likely to use nonverbal communication strategies, reported greater anger and stress, and reported greater problem awareness and less denial associated with hearing loss. The CPHI is a useful tool for specifying parameters of perceived communication handicap for both older men and women. Findings underscore the need to consider gender-specific self-assessment of communication and personal adjustment in clinical management of older adults with age-related hearing loss.

Hearing loss, control, and demographic factors influencing hearing aid use among older adults

Preference for non-use of hearing aids among older adults who are candidates for amplification remains to be explained. Clinical studies have examined the contribution of consumer attitudes, behaviors, and life circumstances to this phenomenon. The present study extends the interests of earlier investigators in that it examines psychological control tendencies in combination with hearing loss and demographic variables among older adults who elected to accept (adherents) or ignore (nonadherents) advice from hearing professionals to acquire and use hearing aids. One hundred thirty-one individuals participated by completing measures of hearing, hearing handicap, psychological control, depression, and ego strength. Participants were asked to provide demographic information and personal opinions regarding hearing aid use. Adherence group and gender differences were noted on measures of hearing sensitivity, psychological control, and demographic factors. Female adherents demonstrated greater hearing loss and poorer word recognition ability but less hearing handicap, higher internal locus of control, higher ego strength, and fewer depressive tendencies than female nonadherents. They reported demographic advantages. Female adherents assumed responsibility for effective communication. Although male adherents and nonadherents did not differ significantly demographically, male adherents were more accepting of their hearing loss, took responsibility for communication problems, and found hearing aids less stigmatizing. Implications for clinical practice and future clinical investigations are identified and discussed. Results are expected to be of interest to clinicians, clinical investigators, and health care policymakers.

Adjustment to hearing impairment II: audiological and demographic correlates

To study adjustment to hearing impairment, clinical records from a five-center consortium (N = 1,008) were used to create a heterogeneous clinical database with results of audiometric tests, demographic and case history information, and responses to the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI; Demorest & Erdman, 1986, 1987). Normative findings have been described previously (Erdman & Demorest, 1998). Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that audiometric variables were moderately correlated with communication performance, behavioral strategies, and personal adjustment. With hearing impairment controlled statistically, age and education effects were evident in many areas of adjustment; correlations between adjustment and gender were relatively weak; and marital status, employment status, and race/ethnicity were rarely significant correlates.

Older Adults

Older adult successful hearing aid users demonstrated an advantage in self-perceived communication effectiveness over nonusers in selected communication situations. They were more likely than nonusers to take a proactive approach to managing difficult communication situations. Successful hearing aid users accepted their hearing loss condition. In managing their hearing loss, successful users based their decision to purchase and use hearing aids on personal information and initiative rather than being influenced by the perceptions of others. Hearing aid costs and personal appearance while wearing hearing aids were nondeterring factors in their acceptance and use. Successful hearing aid users were more tolerant of imperfections in the hearing aid delivery system and product performance than those who chose not to use amplification. Overall results suggest the need for further investigation of personality factors that influence hearing aid selection and use; increased consumer and physician education in the advantages of hearing aid use; population-specific approaches to counseling in the acceptance and use of amplification; and development of approaches to marketing hearing instruments that emphasize consumer benefit.