PubMed · 15986893
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Elliott H Berger. 2005. Ear plug article failed the test.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15986893/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The attenuation provided by a hearing protection device (HPD) in the field is usually estimated by applying a derating factor to the laboratory-determined noise reduction rating (NRR) of the HPD. However, attenuation is highly dependent on individual-specific HPD fit. Prediction of an individual's attenuation depends on the accuracy of the measurement system and the variability of attenuation over time (e.g. after HPD refitting). Variability in attenuation and attenuation test systems has not been adequately characterized to allow for such an assessment. This study compared attenuation measurements made with two systems, Real-Ear-at-Threshold (REAT) and Microphone-in-Real-Ear (MIRE), on 20 workers using two earplugs (foam and custom-molded). Workers' perceptions of the earplugs were also evaluated. Individuals' attenuation results were summarized as personal attenuation ratings (PARs, similar to NRRs). Variability in PARs from between-subject, within-subject and within-day (i.e. repeated tests on a subject without earplug refitting) differences was assessed and used to present the lower confidence limit, or uncertainty factor (UF), of an average individual's attenuation. The custom-molded earplug PARs achieved a higher mean percentage of labeled attenuation than did the foam earplug with both test systems. The custom-molded earplugs also had higher overall acceptance among workers. MIRE PAR levels were lower than REAT levels for both earplugs, but the relationship between the two test systems was highly variable. The MIRE system had lower within-day variability than the REAT system. One individual's MIRE results were highly influential; removal of these results greatly reduced the UF for the custom-molded earplug/MIRE combination. UFs ranged from 8.8 to 13.5 dB. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating variability in individual-specific protection results for personal protective equipment like HPDs, rather than relying on single measurements.
BACKGROUND: Noise induced hearing loss can only be prevented by eliminating or lowering noise exposure levels. Where the source of the noise can not be eliminated workers have to rely on hearing protective equipment. Several trials have been conducted to study the effectiveness of interventions to influence the wearing of hearing protection and to decrease noise exposure. We aimed to establish whether interventions to increase the wearing of hearing protection are effective. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the wearing of hearing protection among workers exposed to noise in the workplace. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2005), EMBASE (1980 to June 2005), NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, CINAHL, LILACS (1982 to June 2005) and Scientific Electronic Library Online. The date of the last search was June 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they had a randomised design, if they were among noise exposed (> 80 dB(A)) workers or pupils, if there was some kind of intervention to promote the wearing of hearing protection (compared to another intervention or no intervention), and if the outcome measured was the amount of use of hearing protection or a proxy measure thereof. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. There were no cases where the pooling of data was appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were found. One study was a two-phased randomised controlled trial. A computer-based intervention tailored to the risk of an individual worker lasting 30 minutes was not found to be more effective than a video providing general information among workers, around 80% of whom already used hearing protection. The second phase of the trial involved sending a reminder to the home address of participants at 30 days, 90 days or at both 30 and 90 days after the intervention, or no reminder. No significant differences in the mean use of hearing protection were found. A second randomised controlled trial evaluated the effect of a four year school based hearing loss prevention programme among pupils working at their parents farms (N=753) in a cluster randomised controlled trial. The intervention group was twice as likely to wear some kind of hearing protection as the control group that received only minimal intervention. All results are based on self reported use of hearing protection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence does not show whether tailored interventions are more or less effective than general interventions in workers, 80% of whom already use hearing protection. Long lasting school based interventions may increase the use of hearing protection substantially. These results are based on single studies only. Better interventions to enhance the use of hearing protection need to be developed and evaluated in order to increase the prevention of noise induced hearing loss among workers.
BACKGROUND: In the absence of surgical treatments with demonstrable long-term efficacy, conservative treatments for snoring remain appropriate. Only limited evidence evaluating the use of ear protection by partners has been published. METHODS: Eligible couples were invited to participate in a two-month trial, with each partner using custom-moulded ear plugs. Five questionnaires were completed by patients and their partners, at baseline and after two months: the snoring outcomes survey (SOS) or the spouse/bed partners survey (SBPS), the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), the general health questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12), the Nottingham health profile (NHP) and the Golombok-Rust inventory of marital status (GRIMS). RESULTS: After two months, there was a significant improvement in the SOS score for patients (p = 0.005), the SBPS score for partners (p = 0.001) and the ESS for partners (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: For selected couples, ear plugs represent an effective short-term treatment for some of the social effects of disruptive snoring, as determined by the SOS, SBPS and ESS questionnaires.