Safe Listening at Venues and Events with Amplified Music - United States, 2022.

Nearly one in four (24.4%) U.S. adults aged 20-69 years show evidence of noise-induced hearing loss (1). Among those reporting exposure to noise outside of work, 19.9% showed possible noise-induced hearing loss. Exposure to non-job-related noise can be substantial (2). Loud music from personal listening devices and entertainment venues might place more than 1 billion teenagers and young adults at risk for hearing loss worldwide (3). Early noise exposure might increase the risk for age-related hearing loss later in life (4). CDC analyzed data from the 2022 FallStyles survey (conducted by Porter Novelli via the Ipsos' KnowledgePanel) on U.S. adult perceptions regarding preventing hearing loss from amplified music at venues or events. More than one half of U.S. adults agreed with one or more of the following protective actions: limiting sound levels, posting warning signs, and using hearing protection when music at such events reaches potentially hazardous levels. Hearing and other health professionals can make use of existing materials available from the World Health Organization (WHO), CDC, and other professional organizations to raise awareness about noise risks and promote protective behaviors.

Prevalence of hearing protection device non-use among noise-exposed US workers in 2007 and 2014.

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the prevalence of hearing protection device (HPD) non-use among US workers exposed to hazardous workplace noise and provided risk estimates. METHODS: Self-reported data from the National Health Interview Survey in 2007 (15,852 workers) and 2014 (23,656 workers) were examined. Weighted prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios of HPD non-use (using HPDs half the time or less when exposed to hazardous noise) were estimated by demographic, industry, and occupation. Differences in the prevalences of non-use were estimated and compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of HPD non-use was 53% among all noise-exposed workers in 2014. Workers in the Accommodation and Food Services industry had the highest prevalence (90%) and risk (PR: 2.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.54-3.96) of HPD non-use. The industries with the lowest prevalences of noise exposure, including Finance and Insurance (2%) and Health Care and Social Assistance (4%), had some of the highest prevalences of HPD non-use (80% and 83%, respectively). There were no statistically significant changes in HPD non-use among industries between 2007 and 2014. Among occupations, HPD non-use increased 37% in Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media, and decreased 39% in Architecture and Engineering. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of HPD non-use remains high; especially within industries and occupations with fewer noise-exposed workers. These groups need targeted attention to increase awareness and compliance. Employers should require HPD use and trainings among noise-exposed workers and provide an assortment of HPDs tailored to noise level and type, workplace environment, communication and audibility needs, and individual comfort and convenience.

Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed workers within the services sector, 2006-2015.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed U.S. workers within the Services sector. METHODS: Audiograms for 1.9 million workers (158,436 within Services) from 2006 to 2015 were examined. Prevalence and adjusted risk for hearing loss as compared with a reference industry were estimated for the Services sector/sub-sectors, and all industries combined. RESULTS: The prevalence of hearing loss within Services was 17 compared to 16% for all industries combined. However, many sub-sectors greatly exceeded the overall prevalence (10-33% higher) and/or had adjusted risks significantly higher than the reference industry. Workers in Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development had the highest prevalence (50%), and workers in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators had more than double the risk, the highest of any sub-sector. Some sub-sectors traditionally viewed as 'low-risk' also had high prevalences and risks. CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of workers within Services have an elevated risk of hearing loss and need immediate hearing conservation efforts. Additional research and surveillance are needed for sub-sectors for which there is low awareness of hearing hazards or a lack of hearing data.

Population-based age adjustment tables for use in occupational hearing conservation programs.

Objective: In occupational hearing conservation programmes, age adjustments may be used to subtract expected age effects. Adjustments used in the U.S. came from a small dataset and overlooked important demographic factors, ages, and stimulus frequencies. The present study derived a set of population-based age adjustment tables and validated them using a database of exposed workers.Design: Cross-sectional population-based study and retrospective longitudinal cohort study for validation.Study sample: Data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (unweighted n = 9937) were used to produce these tables. Male firefighters and emergency medical service workers (76,195 audiograms) were used for validation.Results: Cross-sectional trends implied less change with age than assumed in current U.S. regulations. Different trends were observed among people identifying with non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity. Four age adjustment tables (age range: 18-85) were developed (women or men; non-Hispanic Black or other race/ethnicity). Validation outcomes showed that the population-based tables matched median longitudinal changes in hearing sensitivity well.Conclusions: These population-based tables provide a suitable replacement for those implemented in current U.S. regulations. These tables address a broader range of worker ages, account for differences in hearing sensitivity across race/ethnicity categories, and have been validated for men using longitudinal data.

Occupational noise exposure: A review of its effects, epidemiology, and impact with recommendations for reducing its burden.

Exposure to hazardous noise is one of the most common occupational risks, both in the U.S. and worldwide. Repeated overexposure to noise at or above 85 dBA can cause permanent hearing loss, tinnitus, and difficulty understanding speech in noise. It is also associated with cardiovascular disease, depression, balance problems, and lower income. About 22 million U.S. workers are currently exposed to hazardous occupational noise. Approximately 33% of working-age adults with a history of occupational noise exposure have audiometric evidence of noise-induced hearing damage, and 16% of noise-exposed workers have material hearing impairment. While the Mining, Construction, and Manufacturing sectors typically have the highest prevalence of noise exposure and hearing loss, there are noise-exposed workers in every sector and every sector has workers with hearing loss. Noise-induced hearing loss is preventable. Increased understanding of the biological processes underlying noise damage may lead to protective pharmacologic or genetic therapies. For now, an integrated public health approach that (1) emphasizes noise control over reliance on hearing protection, (2) illustrates the full impact of hearing loss on quality of life, and (3) challenges the cultural acceptance of loud noise can substantially reduce the impact of noise on worker health.

Cardiovascular conditions, hearing difficulty, and occupational noise exposure within US industries and occupations.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of occupational noise exposure, hearing difficulty and cardiovascular conditions within US industries and occupations, and to examine any associations of these outcomes with occupational noise exposure. METHODS: National Health Interview Survey data from 2014 were examined. Weighted prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios of self-reported hearing difficulty, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and coronary heart disease or stroke were estimated by level of occupational noise exposure, industry, and occupation. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of current workers had a history of occupational noise exposure (14% exposed in the last year), 12% had hearing difficulty, 24% had hypertension, 28% had elevated cholesterol; 58%, 14%, and 9% of these cases can be attributed to occupational noise exposure, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and hearing difficulty are more prevalent among noise-exposed workers. Reducing workplace noise levels is critical. Workplace-based health and wellness programs should also be considered.

Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed workers within the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector, 2003-2012.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed US workers within the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting (AFFH) sector. METHODS: Audiograms for 1.4 million workers (17 299 within AFFH) from 2003 to 2012 were examined. Prevalence, and the adjusted risk for hearing loss as compared with the reference industry (Couriers and Messengers), were estimated. RESULTS: The overall AFFH sector prevalence was 15% compared to 19% for all industries combined, but many of the AFFH sub-sectors exceeded the overall prevalence. Forestry sub-sector prevalences were highest with Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products at 36% and Timber Tract Operations at 22%. The Aquaculture sub-sector had the highest adjusted risk of all AFFH sub-sectors (PR = 1.70; CI = 1.42-2.04). CONCLUSIONS: High risk industries within the AFFH sector need continued hearing conservation efforts. Barriers to hearing loss prevention and early detection of hearing loss need to be recognized and addressed.

Acoustic reflexes are common but not pervasive: evidence using a diagnostic middle ear analyser.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine whether acoustic reflexes are pervasive (i.e. known with 95% confidence to be observed in at least 95% of people) by examining the frequency of occurrence using a friction-fit diagnostic middle ear analyser. DESIGN: Adult participants with very good hearing sensitivity underwent audiometric and middle ear testing. Acoustic reflexes were tested ipsilaterally and contralaterally in both ears across a range of elicitor frequencies. Reflex elicitors were 700 ms tones presented at maximum level of 100 dB HL. Two automated methods were used to detect the presence of an acoustic reflex. STUDY SAMPLE: A group of 285 adult volunteers with normal hearing. RESULTS: There were no conditions in which the proportion of participants exhibiting acoustic reflexes was high enough to be deemed pervasive. Ipsilateral reflexes were more likely to be observed than contralateral reflexes and reflexes were more common at 0.5 and 1 kHz elicitor frequencies as compared with 2 and 4 kHz elicitor frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: Acoustic reflexes are common among individuals with good hearing. However, acoustic reflexes are not pervasive and should not be included in damage risk criteria and health hazard assessments for impulsive noise.

Vital Signs: Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Among Adults - United States 2011-2012.

INTRODUCTION: The 2016 National Academies of Sciences report "Hearing Health Care for Adults: Priorities for Improving Access and Affordability" included a call to action for government agencies to strengthen efforts to collect, analyze, and disseminate population-based data on hearing loss in adults. METHODS: CDC analyzed the most recent available data collected both by questionnaire and audiometric tests of adult participants aged 20-69 years in the 2011-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to determine the presence of audiometric notches indicative of noise-induced hearing loss. Prevalence of both unilateral and bilateral audiometric notches and their association with sociodemographics and self-reported exposure to loud noise were calculated. RESULTS: Nearly one in four adults (24%) had audiometric notches, suggesting a high prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss. The prevalence of notches was higher among males. Almost one in four U.S. adults who reported excellent or good hearing had audiometric notches (5.5% bilateral and 18.0% unilateral). Among participants who reported exposure to loud noise at work, almost one third had a notch. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Noise-induced hearing loss is a significant, often unrecognized health problem among U.S. adults. Discussions between patients and personal health care providers about hearing loss symptoms, tests, and ways to protect hearing might help with early diagnosis of hearing loss and provide opportunities to prevent harmful noise exposures. Avoiding prolonged exposure to loud environments and using personal hearing protection devices can prevent noise-induced hearing loss.

Hearing Impairment Among Noise-Exposed Workers - United States, 2003-2012.

Hearing loss is the third most common chronic physical condition in the United States, and is more prevalent than diabetes or cancer (1). Occupational hearing loss, primarily caused by high noise exposure, is the most common U.S. work-related illness (2). Approximately 22 million U.S. workers are exposed to hazardous occupational noise (3). CDC compared the prevalence of hearing impairment within nine U.S. industry sectors using 1,413,789 noise-exposed worker audiograms from CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Occupational Hearing Loss Surveillance Project (4). CDC estimated the prevalence at six hearing impairment levels, measured in the better ear, and the impact on quality of life expressed as annual disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), as defined by the 2013 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study (5). The mining sector had the highest prevalence of workers with any hearing impairment, and with moderate or worse impairment, followed by the construction and manufacturing sectors. Hearing loss prevention, and early detection and intervention to avoid additional hearing loss, are critical to preserve worker quality of life.

Hearing difficulty and tinnitus among U.S. workers and non-workers in 2007.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss and tinnitus are two potentially debilitating physical conditions affecting many people in the United States. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of hearing difficulty, tinnitus, and their co-occurrence within U.S. METHODS: Data from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) were examined. Weighted prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios for self-reported hearing difficulty, tinnitus, and their co-occurrence were estimated and compared by demographic, among workers with and without occupational noise exposure, and across industries and occupations. RESULTS: Seven percent of U.S. workers never exposed to occupational noise had hearing difficulty, 5% had tinnitus and 2% had both conditions. However, among workers who had ever been exposed to occupational noise, the prevalence was 23%, 15%, and 9%, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Hearing difficulty and tinnitus are prevalent in the U.S.; especially among noise-exposed workers. Improved strategies for hearing conservation or better implementation are needed.

Hearing protector fit testing with off-shore oil-rig inspectors in Louisiana and Texas.

OBJECTIVE: This field study aimed to assess the noise reduction of hearing protection for individual workers, demonstrate the effectiveness of training on the level of protection achieved, and measure the time required to implement hearing protector fit testing in the workplace. DESIGN: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted field studies in Louisiana and Texas to test the performance of HPD Well-Fit. STUDY SAMPLE: Fit tests were performed on 126 inspectors and engineers working in the offshore oil industry. RESULTS: Workers were fit tested with the goal of achieving a 25-dB PAR. Less than half of the workers were achieving sufficient protection from their hearing protectors prior to NIOSH intervention and training; following re-fitting and re-training, over 85% of the workers achieved sufficient protection. Typical test times were 6-12 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Fit testing of the workers' earplugs identified those workers who were and were not achieving the desired level of protection. Recommendations for other hearing protection solutions were made for workers who could not achieve the target PAR. The study demonstrates the need for individual hearing protector fit testing and addresses some of the barriers to implementation.

Trends in worker hearing loss by industry sector, 1981-2010.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the incidence and prevalence of hearing loss for noise-exposed U.S. workers by industry sector and 5-year time period, covering 30 years. METHODS: Audiograms for 1.8 million workers from 1981-2010 were examined. Incidence and prevalence were estimated by industry sector and time period. The adjusted risk of incident hearing loss within each time period and industry sector as compared with a reference time period was also estimated. RESULTS: The adjusted risk for incident hearing loss decreased over time when all industry sectors were combined. However, the risk remained high for workers in Healthcare and Social Assistance, and the prevalence was consistently high for Mining and Construction workers. CONCLUSIONS: While progress has been made in reducing the risk of incident hearing loss within most industry sectors, additional efforts are needed within Mining, Construction and Healthcare and Social Assistance.

Sex-specific predictors of hearing-aid use in older persons: The age, gene/environment susceptibility - Reykjavik study.

OBJECTIVE: We estimate the prevalence of hearing-aid use in Iceland and identify sex-specific factors associated with use. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 5172 age, gene/environment susceptibility - Reykjavik study (AGES-RS) participants, aged 67 to 96 years (mean age 76.5 years), who completed air-conduction and pure-tone audiometry. RESULTS: Hearing-aid use was reported by 23.0% of men and 15.9% of women in the cohort, although among participants with at least moderate hearing loss in the better ear (pure-tone average [PTA] of thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz ≥ 35 dB hearing level [HL]) it was 49.9% and did not differ by sex. Self-reported hearing loss was the strongest predictor of hearing-aid use in men [OR: 2.68 (95% CI: 1.77, 4.08)] and women [OR: 3.07 (95% CI: 1.94, 4.86)], followed by hearing loss severity based on audiometry. Having diabetes or osteoarthritis were significant positive predictors of use in men, whereas greater physical activity and unimpaired cognitive status were important in women. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing-aid use was comparable in Icelandic men and women with moderate or greater hearing loss. Self-recognition of hearing loss was the factor most predictive of hearing-aid use; other influential factors differed for men and women.

Impairments in hearing and vision impact on mortality in older people: the AGES-Reykjavik Study.

OBJECTIVE: to examine the relationships between impairments in hearing and vision and mortality from all-causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) among older people. DESIGN: population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: the study population included 4,926 Icelandic individuals, aged ≥67 years, 43.4% male, who completed vision and hearing examinations between 2002 and 2006 in the Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study (AGES-RS) and were followed prospectively for mortality through 2009. METHODS: participants were classified as having 'moderate or greater' degree of impairment for vision only (VI), hearing only (HI), and both vision and hearing (dual sensory impairment, DSI). Cox proportional hazard regression, with age as the time scale, was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) associated with impairment and mortality due to all-causes and specifically CVD after a median follow-up of 5.3 years. RESULTS: the prevalence of HI, VI and DSI were 25.4, 9.2 and 7.0%, respectively. After adjusting for age, significantly (P < 0.01) increased mortality from all causes, and CVD was observed for HI and DSI, especially among men. After further adjustment for established mortality risk factors, people with HI remained at higher risk for CVD mortality [HR: 1.70 (1.27-2.27)], whereas people with DSI remained at higher risk of all-cause mortality [HR: 1.43 (1.11-1.85)] and CVD mortality [HR: 1.78 (1.18-2.69)]. Mortality rates were significantly higher in men with HI and DSI and were elevated, although not significantly, among women with HI. CONCLUSIONS: older men with HI or DSI had a greater risk of dying from any cause and particularly cardiovascular causes within a median 5-year follow-up. Women with hearing impairment had a non-significantly elevated risk. Vision impairment alone was not associated with increased mortality.

Do hearing protectors protect hearing?

BACKGROUND: We examined the association between self-reported hearing protection use at work and incidence of hearing shifts over a 5-year period. METHODS: Audiometric data from 19,911 workers were analyzed. Two hearing shift measures-OSHA standard threshold shift (OSTS) and high-frequency threshold shift (HFTS)-were used to identify incident shifts in hearing between workers' 2005 and 2009 audiograms. Adjusted odds ratios were generated using multivariable logistic regression with multi-level modeling. RESULTS: The odds ratio for hearing shift for workers who reported never versus always wearing hearing protection was nonsignificant for OSTS (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92-1.64) and marginally significant for HFTS (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00-1.59). A significant linear trend towards increased risk of HFTS with decreased use of hearing protection was observed (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The study raises concern about the effectiveness of hearing protection as a substitute for noise control to prevent noise-induced hearing loss in the workplace.

Prevalence of Hearing Loss Among Noise-Exposed US Workers Within the Utilities Sector, 2010-2019.

OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to estimate hearing loss prevalence for noise-exposed US Utilities workers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study of a retrospective cohort, audiograms were examined for 1.3 million workers (13,595 within utilities) from 2010-2019. Hearing loss prevalence and adjusted risk as compared with a reference industry were estimated. RESULTS: The hearing loss prevalence for noise-exposed Utilities workers (25%) was higher than for noise-exposed workers in all industries combined (20%). Some subsectors surpassed the prevalence for all industries combined and/or had adjusted risks significantly higher than the reference industry. The highest prevalence subsectors were Hydroelectric Power Generation (37%) and steam and Air-Conditioning Supply (29%). CONCLUSIONS: While often overlooked, noise-exposed workers in this sector have among the highest prevalences of hearing loss and significantly higher risks. Increased attention and better hearing conservation strategies are needed.

Prevalence of hearing loss in the United States by industry.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-two million workers are exposed to hazardous noise in the United States. The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence of hearing loss among U.S. industries. METHODS: We examined 2000-2008 audiograms for male and female workers ages 18-65, who had higher occupational noise exposures than the general population. Prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for hearing loss were estimated and compared across industries. RESULTS: In our sample, 18% of workers had hearing loss. When compared with the Couriers and Messengers industry sub-sector, workers employed in Mining (PR = 1.65, CI = 1.57-1.73), Wood Product Manufacturing (PR = 1.65, CL = 1.61-1.70), Construction of Buildings (PR = 1.52, CI = 1.45-1.59), and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (PR = 1.61, CL = 1.51-1.71) [corrected] had higher risks for hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Workers in the Mining, Manufacturing, and Construction industries need better engineering controls for noise and stronger hearing conservation strategies. More hearing loss research is also needed within traditional "low-risk" industries like Real Estate.

Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss: 50 Years of Research and Recommendations from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

For more than 50 years, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of the United States (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been actively working to reduce the effects of noise and ototoxic chemicals on worker hearing. NIOSH has pioneered basic and applied research on occupational hearing risks and preventive measures. The Institute has issued recommendations and promoted effective interventions through mechanisms ranging from formal criteria documents to blogs and social media. NIOSH has conducted surveillance and published statistics to guide policy and target prevention efforts. Over the past five decades, substantial progress has been made in raising awareness of noise as a hazard, reducing the risk of occupational hearing loss, improving the use of hearing protection, and advancing measurement and control technologies. Nevertheless, noise remains a prevalent workplace hazard and occupational hearing loss is still one of the most common work-related conditions. NIOSH continues to work toward preventing the effects of noise and ototoxicants at work and has many resources to assist audiologists in their hearing loss prevention efforts.