Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States

Objectives: To evaluate noise exposures and hearing loss prevention efforts in industries with relatively high rates of workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss. Methods: Washington State workers’ compensation records were used to identify up to 10 companies in each of eight industries. Each company (n = 76) was evaluated by a management interview, employee personal noise dosimetry (n = 983), and employee interviews (n = 1557). Results: Full-shift average exposures were ⩾85 dBA for 50% of monitored employees, using Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) parameters with a 5 dB exchange rate (Lave), but 74% were ⩾85 dBA using a 3 dB exchange rate (Leq). Only 14% had Lave ⩾90 dBA, but 42% had Leq ⩾90 dBA. Most companies conducted noise measurements, but most kept no records, and consideration of noise controls was low in all industries. Hearing loss prevention programmes were commonly incomplete. Management interview scores (higher score = more complete programme) showed significant associations with percentage of employees having Lave ⩾85 dBA and presence of a union (multiple linear regression; R2 = 0.24). Overall, 62% of interviewed employees reported always using hearing protection when exposed. Protector use showed significant associations with percentage of employees specifically required to use protection, management score, and average employee time spent ⩾95 dBA (R2 = 0.65). Conclusions: The findings raise serious concerns about the adequacy of prevention, regulation, and enforcement strategies in the United States. The percentage of workers with excessive exposure was 1.5–3 times higher using a 3 dB exchange rate instead of the OSHA specified 5 dB exchange rate. Most companies gave limited or no attention to noise controls and relied primarily on hearing protection to prevent hearing loss; yet 38% of employees did not use protectors routinely. Protector use was highest when hearing loss prevention programmes were most complete, indicating that under-use of protection was, in some substantial part, attributable to incomplete or inadequate company efforts.

[1]  Sally Lechlitner Lusk,et al.  Predictors of Hearing Protection Use among Workers: Implications for Training Programs , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[2]  William E Daniell,et al.  Increased reporting of occupational hearing loss: workers' compensation in Washington State, 1984-1998. , 2002, American journal of industrial medicine.

[3]  B L Eakin,et al.  Creating a tailored, multimedia, computer-based intervention. , 2001, Computers in nursing.

[4]  Barbara Silverstein,et al.  Use of a prevention index to identify industries at high risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, back, and upper extremity in Washington state, 1990-1998. , 2002, American journal of industrial medicine.

[6]  J M Boiano,et al.  Development of a National Occupational Exposure Survey and Database associated with NIOSH hazard surveillance initiatives. , 2001, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[7]  D. Ronis,et al.  Test of the health promotion model as a causal model of construction workers' use of hearing protection. , 1997, Research in nursing & health.

[8]  Sally Lechlitner Lusk,et al.  Effectiveness of an Intervention to Increase Construction Workers' Use of Hearing Protection , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[9]  M J Kerr,et al.  Use of hearing protection and perceptions of noise exposure and hearing loss among construction workers. , 1998, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[10]  J P Bonde,et al.  Surveillance of noise exposure in the Danish workplace: a baseline survey , 2004, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[11]  M J Reilly,et al.  Occupational noise-induced hearing loss surveillance in Michigan. , 1998, Journal of occupational and environmental medicine.

[12]  P. Middendorf.  Surveillance of occupational noise exposures using OSHA's Integrated Management Information System. , 2004, American journal of industrial medicine.

[13]  M J Kerr,et al.  Applying the Health Promotion Model to Development of a Worksite Intervention , 1999, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

[14]  D. Ronis,et al.  Effectiveness of a Tailored Intervention to Increase Factory Workers’ Use of Hearing Protection , 2003, Nursing research.

[15]  D. Ronis,et al.  Gender differences in blue collar workers' use of hearing protection. , 1997, Women & health.

[16]  Survivors Insurance,et al.  County business patterns , 1948 .

[17]  M. M. McDaniel,et al.  Noise exposure and hearing conservation practices in an industry with high incidence of workers' compensation claims for hearing loss. , 2002, American journal of industrial medicine.