Translating Data into Knowledge and Action: Challenges in Evidence-Based Hearing Loss Prevention

Details

• Personal Author:
  Morata, Thais C.
• Description:
  Background: Evidence-based practices seek to ensure that the best available scientific evidence is used in clinical decision making. Such approach requires assessing all scientific evidence available on the risks and benefits of interventions and diagnostic procedures. Evidence quality is assessed based on the source type (from meta-analyses and systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials as high-quality sources, down to conventional wisdom as low-quality ones), currency, statistical validity, clinical relevance, and peer-review acceptance. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a provision for federal funding to investigate how different interventions compare to each other. The Act called on the Institute of Medicine to recommend comparative effectiveness research priority topics. Their recommendations are in the report Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12648.html). The need for research on hearing loss interventions was placed in the highest priority group. This recommendation underscores the human and societal costs of the condition. The risk of hearing impairment increases with age and is exacerbated by exposure to noise, particularly at work. This risk can be minimized by reducing noise levels to 85 dB(A) or less. Many countries have mandated hearing loss prevention programs when noise exposures cannot be reduced to this level. However, the continuing high rate of noise-induced hearing loss raises concerns on the effectiveness of these programs. Methods: Recent Cochrane Reviews investigated various initiatives and mechanisms (e.g., legislation, proper hearing protector usage, etc.) to determine which work best to either promote the use of hearing protections, and/or reduce noise exposure or hearing loss among workers. Results: Results from intervention effectiveness studies on hearing loss prevention do not provide evidence to support current practices. There is consensus in the literature that some interventions improve the use of hearing protection devices compared to non-intervention; there is low quality evidence that legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces, and contradictory evidence that prevention programs are effective in the long-term. Most reported interventions focus on the use of hearing protectors, and effectiveness depends on the quality of the implementation of prevention programs. Substantial noise control can be achieved in the workplace, with no evidence of this practice in the literature. Conclusions: Better and large scale implementation of technical interventions and evaluation of their long-term effects are necessary to identify the most effective strategies for reducing occupational hearing loss. [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Hearing Loss Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced Noise Noise, Occupational Occupational Exposure Occupational Health Safety
• Keywords:
  Hearing Loss Prevention Intervention Effectiveness Noise Exposure Noise Induced Hearing Loss Occupational Exposure Translational Research
• ISSN:
  0742-3152
• Publisher:
  Association for Research in Otolaryngology
• Document Type:
  Text
• Genre:
  Abstract or Summary
• Place as Subject:
  Maryland ; Ohio ; OSHA Region 3 ; OSHA Region 5
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Division:
  DART - Division of Applied Research and Technology
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Pages in Document:
  288-289
• Volume:
  36
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20061062
• Citation:
  Abstr Midwinter Res Meet Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2013 Feb; 36:288-289
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2013
• Peer Reviewed:
  False
• Source Full Name:
  Abstracts of the 36th Midwinter Research Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Febuary 16-20, 2013, Baltimore, Maryland
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:7795ff649cbb56fa74b31abed1272f8ab02e8bc60c5252cad64835cfd807f147dba31fde721b0d1bba2e8494f6bbc8f63b50918aea886725b2f0b8d82e9f1f6f
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/224740/cdc_224740_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.43 MB ]