A multi-component intervention to promote hearing protector use among construction workers

Abstract

Hearing protection devices (HPD) remain a primary method of prevention of noise-induced hearing loss despite their well-known limitations. A three-pronged intervention to increase HPD use was conducted among construction workers and included a baseline hearing loss prevention training, follow-up 'toolbox' (TB) reinforcement trainings, and use of a personal noise level indicator (NLI). A total of 176 subjects on eight sites completed three assessments. Prior to intervention, HPDs were used an average of 34.5% of the time and increased significantly, up about 12.1% after intervention and 7.5% two months after interventions were completed. The increase in HPD use was greatest among the group receiving both TB and NLI interventions; up about 25% from baseline, and this group was about two times more likely to use HPDs than the BL (baseline) training only group. This study demonstrates the mild impact of a well-constructed HPD use training and provides support for the additional use of a personal NLI to increase use of HPDs among construction workers. The most effective procedures for using such instruments require further exploration. KeywordsHearing protectors; Construction; Hearing conservation training; Noise exposure; Hearing loss prevention; Intervention research Despite wide recognition of the high levels of noise exposure in the construction industry (Sinclair & Haflidson, 1995;Legris & Poulin, 1998;Suter, 2002), the high prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss among long-term construction workers (Daniell et al, 2002;Hong, 2005), and the potential effectiveness of hearing protection devices (HPDs) (Berger et al, 1996;Toivonen et al, 2002), especially when used as part of a comprehensive hearing loss prevention program (HLPP) (Brink et al, 2002;Davies et al, 2008;Rabinowitz et al, 2007), use of HPDs among construction workers remains frustratingly low. Previous work Correspondence: Noah Seixas, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. nseixas@u.washington.edu. Declaration of interest:The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript Int J Audiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 14. Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript by our group has observed usage rates less than 25% of the time while workers were exposed to noise levels greater than 85 dBA, the nominal 'high noise' level at which risk of hearing loss increases steeply. Further, when the attenuation achieved by typical foam insert ear plugs is factored in with the time of use and exposure levels at those times, the average reduction in exposure is less than 3 dBA over a full work shift. While both noise exposure level and HPD use appear to vary substantially by trade, all trades observed have a substantial fraction of their full shift exposures above 85 dBA, even after adjusting for HPD us...

Avaliação de intervenção educativa voltada à preservação auditiva de trabalhadores de uma lavanderia hospitalar

“…Compliance with legislation regarding the performance of audiometry has not always occurred (3) in spite of its importance, because auditory monitoring is fundamental to assess prevention actions (4) . Other studies have also observed an increase in workers' knowledge about preservation of hearing at work after interventions, but with educational strategies and approaches different from that developed in the present study, evidencing percentage changes smaller than those found here (6)(7)(8)11,27,28) . In the USA, a study on educational intervention was conducted with 176 construction workers aiming to increase the use of HPDs.…”

“…The strategy used was to convey basic information and additional extensive information in four training sessions for one group, and only basic information in a single training session for another group. The authors observed increased (12.1%) use of HPDs and greater content absorption in the group that received basic educational intervention and reinforcement training in four sessions (7) . In Brazil, a study aiming to verify the effectiveness of an educational training intervention, using individual conversation and illustrative material at the time of audiometry, was conducted with 78 workers divided into a research group (44 workers) and a control group (34 workers).…”

“…The instrument, which contained 36 statements in both versions, presents the following themes, grouping more than one item: 1) Knowledge about the causes of hearing loss at work (questions 1 and 10; 2) Perception of the consequences of hearing loss (questions 2 and 11); 3) Perception of the benefits of preventive action (questions 4, 13, and 19); 4) Conditions for using hearing protection devices (HPD) (questions 5,6,7,14,15,16,20 There is a possibility of closed answers, with five choices, which were scored according to the Likert scale as: 1-fully agree; 2-agree; 3-neither agree nor disagree; 4-disagree; 5-strongly disagree.…”

“…Development of educational actions that promote awareness and knowledge about how to preserve hearing at the workplace is among these actions (4,5) . The specific scientific literature presents several studies on the development of interventions aimed at raising awareness of hearing protection in workers from different sectors, namely, (6,7) , carpentry (8) , hospitals (9,10) , civil defense -firefighters (11) , and food producing companies (12) . Hospital laundries, which are the object of the present study, are another occupational setting that presents risks to hearing (13) ; however, no studies describing educational actions in this segment have been observed.…”

The use of personal hearing protection in hostile territory and the effect of health promotion activity: advice falling upon deaf ears

“…Because the only study that describes the effect of follow-up training failed to demonstrate any benefit from it,12 there was no benchmark against which to compare the health promotion activity.…”