Abstract Objective: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. Design: We searched biomedical databases up to 25 January 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies and interrupted time-series of hearing loss prevention among workers exposed to noise. Study sample: We included 19 studies with 82 794 participants evaluating effects of hearing loss prevention programs (HLPP). The overall quality of studies was low to very low, as rated using the GRADE approach. Results: One study of stricter legislation showed a favorable effect on noise levels. Three studies, of which two RCTs, did not find an effect of a HLPP. Four studies showed that better use of hearing protection devices in HLPPs decreased the risk of hearing loss. In four other studies, workers in a HLPP still had a 0.5 dB greater hearing loss at 4 kHz (95% CI - 0.5 to 1.7) than non-exposed workers. In two similar studies there was a substantial risk of hearing loss in spite of a HLPP. Conclusions: Stricter enforcement of legislation and better implementation of HLPPs can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Better evaluations of technical interventions and long-term effects are needed.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To describe the rationale and creation of a national award to recognize and promote hearing loss prevention.
In 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with the National Hearing Conservation Association to create the Safe-in-Sound Excellence in Hearing Loss Prevention Award™ ( www.safeinsound.us ). The objectives of this initiative were to recognize organizations that document measurable achievements and to share leading edge information to a broader community.
An expert committee developed specific and explicit award evaluation criteria of excellence in hearing loss prevention for organizations in different industrial sectors. The general approach toward award criteria was to incorporate current 'best practices' and familiar benchmarks of hearing loss prevention programs. This approach was reviewed publicly. In addition, mechanisms were identified to measure the impact of the award itself. Interest in the award was recorded through the monitoring of the visitor traffic registered by the award web site and is increasing yearly. Specific values and strategies common across award winners are presented.
The Safe-in-Sound Award™ has obtained high quality field data; identified practical solutions, disseminated successful strategies to minimize the risk of hearing loss, generated new partnerships, and shared practical solutions with others in the field.
International journal of audiology 02/2012; 51 Suppl 1(S1):S63-70. DOI:10.3109/14992027.2011.633569 · 1.84 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Eine akute Hörminderung ist für den Patienten ein Anlass, sofort den Arzt aufzusuchen. Nicht jeder subjektive Notfall ist aber auch ein objektiver. Die folgende Darstellung bietet eine Übersicht wesentlicher anamnestischer, diagnostischer und therapeutischer Schritte bei Hörstörungen im Rahmen von für den Allgemeinarzt relevanten Ohrerkrankungen.
MMW Fortschritte der Medizin 06/2012; 154(11):68-72. DOI:10.1007/s15006-012-0756-1
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.