Intentional Exposure to Loud Music: The Second Survey Reveals an Opportunity to Educate

Pediatric Otolaryngology Service, Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Department of Otology and Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
The Journal of pediatrics (Impact Factor: 3.79). 07/2009; 155(4):550-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.04.053
Source: PubMed


Music-induced hearing loss (MIHL), an unconsciously self-inflicted public health concern, could evolve into an epidemic because of the appeal of loud music. After media attention about a previous hearing-loss survey with Music Television (, we hypothesized that a repeat survey could compare awareness and behavior trends.
We incorporated the 2002 survey into the new 73-question instrument presented to random visitors on the website in 2007. A P < .05 value was used for independent t and z- tests.
A total of 2500 completed surveys were analyzed. Hearing loss was considered a problem by 32% of respondents compared with other health issues such as drug/alcohol use (62%). However, nearly half of the respondents admitted experiencing symptoms such as tinnitus or hearing loss after loud music exposure. Health care providers were the least likely source of MIHL awareness despite the respondents favoring provider education for hearing protection behavior modification.
Most respondents still could not recall learning about prevention of potential hearing loss, although the media has become the most informative source. Most respondents indicated that they would adopt protective ear behavior if made aware of hearing loss risk, especially if informed by health care professionals, revealing an educational opportunity.

18 Reads
  • Source
    • "A recent study by our lab demonstrated that single blast exposure (14 psi, 10 ms pulse duration) induced immediate noise-like tinnitus, which later shifted towards high-frequencies [60]. Overall, experimental findings are in line with human data, where individuals have been exposed to acoustic trauma with a range of characteristics and experience tinnitus with varying features [88]–[90], [92], [93]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tinnitus has a complex etiology that involves auditory and non-auditory factors and may be accompanied by hyperacusis, anxiety and cognitive changes. Thus far, investigations of the interrelationship between tinnitus and auditory and non-auditory impairment have yielded conflicting results. To further address this issue, we noise exposed rats and assessed them for tinnitus using a gap detection behavioral paradigm combined with statistically-driven analysis to diagnose tinnitus in individual rats. We also tested rats for hearing detection, responsivity, and loss using prepulse inhibition and auditory brainstem response, and for spatial cognition and anxiety using Morris water maze and elevated plus maze. We found that our tinnitus diagnosis method reliably separated noise-exposed rats into tinnitus((+)) and tinnitus((-)) groups and detected no evidence of tinnitus in tinnitus((-)) and control rats. In addition, the tinnitus((+)) group demonstrated enhanced startle amplitude, indicating hyperacusis-like behavior. Despite these results, neither tinnitus, hyperacusis nor hearing loss yielded any significant effects on spatial learning and memory or anxiety, though a majority of rats with the highest anxiety levels had tinnitus. These findings showed that we were able to develop a clinically relevant tinnitus((+)) group and that our diagnosis method is sound. At the same time, like clinical studies, we found that tinnitus does not always result in cognitive-emotional dysfunction, although tinnitus may predispose subjects to certain impairment like anxiety. Other behavioral assessments may be needed to further define the relationship between tinnitus and anxiety, cognitive deficits, and other impairments.
    PLoS ONE 09/2013; 8(9):e75011. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0075011 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Temporary noise-induced tinnitus (NIT) is also a common phenomenon in adolescents as reported prevalence numbers in previous studies vary between 45% and 77% [15]–[19]. Although most hearing symptoms such as tinnitus and hearing loss after loud music exposure have a temporary character, such symptoms are a clear sign of overexposure. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research showed an increase of noise-induced symptoms in adolescents. Permanent tinnitus as a consequence of loud music exposure is usually considered as noise-induced damage. The objective was to perform an epidemiological study in order to obtain prevalence data of permanent noise-induced tinnitus as well as temporary tinnitus following noise exposure in a young population. In addition the attitudes and beliefs towards noise and hearing protection were evaluated in order to explain the use/non-use of hearing protection in a young population. A questionnaire was completed by 3892 high school students (mean age: 16.64 years old, SD: 1.29 years). The prevalence of temporary and permanent tinnitus was assessed. In addition the 'Youth Attitudes to Noise Scale' and the 'Beliefs About Hearing Protection and Hearing Loss' were used in order to assess the attitudes and beliefs towards noise and hearing protection respectively. The prevalence of temporary noise-induced tinnitus and permanent tinnitus in high school students was respectively 74.9% and 18.3%. An increasing prevalence of temporary tinnitus with age was present. Most students had a 'neutral attitude' towards loud music and the use of hearing protection was minimal (4.7%). The limited use of hearing protection is explained by a logistic regression analysis showing the relations between certain parameters and the use of hearing protection. Despite the very high prevalence of tinnitus in such a young population, the rate of hearing protection use and the knowledge about the risks of loud music is extremely low. Future preventive campaigns should focus more on tinnitus as a warning signal for noise-induced damage and emphasize that also temporary symptoms can result in permanent noise-induced damage.
    PLoS ONE 07/2013; 8(7):e70297. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0070297 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "During early adolescence, attitudes to social noise and hearing protection indicate that the higher the socio-economic status, the higher was the individual ' s concern about noise and the use of hearing protection (Wid é n & Erlandsson, 2004), which may also explain our results. Most children indicated that they would use hearing protective strategies if they were aware of hearing loss risk, as also indicated by other similar studies (Chen et al, 2008; Quintanilla-Dieck et al, 2009). However Chen et al (2008) revealed knowledge did not necessarily prompt the adoption of protective behavior when adolescents were exposed to loud sounds. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Identification of the beliefs and attitudes towards noise exposure and the risk of noise-induced hearing loss in Brazilian children. Prospective cross-sectional study through interviews with children and their parents. 753 children were selected and invited to participate. The final sample was 475 children and 404 parents. In general, children disliked noisy places (67%). Although 87.4% of the children and 93.9% of the parents considered loud sounds damaging to the ears, children were poorly informed about hearing protection and did not have hearing protection devices. Children were mostly exposed to parties and concerts with loud music (51.9%), carnaval (Mardi Gras) parties (38.2%), firecrackers (36.8%), and loud music at home or in the car (33.1%), or from listening to loud music with earphones (17.3%). Compared to children from private schools, children from public schools had a greater preference for loud sounds and were less informed about hearing protection. Knowledge of hearing risk from loud sounds was not enough to prompt preventive behaviors, and adults exposed children to loud sounds.
    International journal of audiology 02/2012; 51 Suppl 1(S1):S12-9. DOI:10.3109/14992027.2011.637307 · 1.84 Impact Factor
Show more