Home Email this page Print this page Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size
Noise & Health  
 CURRENT ISSUE    PAST ISSUES    SEARCH   GET E-ALERTS    
 
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2313    
    Printed127    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded30    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents    
EDITORIAL  
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 51  |  Page : 85
Introduction to the special issue: Hearing protection state of the art

Hearing Loss Prevention Team, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Click here for correspondence address and email
Date of Web Publication1-Mar-2011
 
How to cite this article:
Davis RR. Introduction to the special issue: Hearing protection state of the art. Noise Health 2011;13:85

How to cite this URL:
Davis RR. Introduction to the special issue: Hearing protection state of the art. Noise Health [serial online] 2011 [cited 2014 Oct 30];13:85. Available from: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2011/13/51/85/77187
It appears that the hearing protection device (HPD) will be a fixture of hearing loss prevention programs for the foreseeable future. The perception in industry is that it is more cost-effective to place workers in hearing loss prevention programs wearing hearing protection devices than to quiet the environment to safe levels. This issue describes the state of the art for research in hearing protection devices and hearing loss prevention programs.

The barriers to workers accepting and wearing hearing protection include comfort and communication. Byrne et al. describe a simple study where subjects wearing a foam plug in one ear and a wax plug in the other report on comfort. Davis and Shaw characterize heat and humidity buildup under an earmuff both in terms of physical and comfort measures. Another barrier is the ability to hear safety signals. Alali and Casali report some new research on detection and localization of backup alarms while wearing different types of hearing protection.

Training workers to more effectively use their hearing protection is fundamental to the hearing loss prevention program. Two companion papers by Stephenson et al. demonstrate how health communication can significantly influence attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions about hearing protector use. Murphy et al. provide information on the effectiveness of video training versus professional training of HPD insertion techniques for workers. Their results seem to indicate that human contact is still needed for good hearing protection device placement. Ehlers and Graydon present a case study of their work on "training the trainers" to propagate the hearing loss prevention message to the agricultural community - an underserved population.

The goal of hearing protector use is to reduce exposure of the ear to noise and thus hearing loss. A number of tools are emerging to help the hearing loss professional with that task, including individual fit-testing and under-the-protector monitoring.

Fit-testing of hearing protection to ensure adequate attenuation has become a hot topic. In this issue, Hager reviews the most common fit-testing technologies, including psychophysical methods and microphone-based technology. Schulz then provides an overview of how these technologies are being used in hearing loss prevention programs. Berger et al. compare and contrast objective and psychophysical approaches to fit-testing.

Taking a different approach is Michael et al., who measure the total noise exposure under the hearing protection device during the work day.

It has been a positive experience preparing this special issue and working with these intelligent and talented authors over the past year. I would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, Deepak Prasher, for the invitation to edit this special issue of Noise and Health. I would also like to thank a number of people who I called upon to review manuscripts usually on a tight schedule: John Franks, Thais Morata, Narelle Murray, Rick Neitzel, Bob Randolph, Sue Stanton, Christa Themann, Jennifer Tufts, Madeleine Kerr, Samir Gerges, as well as many of the authors.

We trust you will find this special issue of value in your work.

Top
Correspondence Address:
Rickie R Davis
Hearing Loss Prevention Team, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH
USA
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.77187

PMID: 21368432

Get Permissions





 

Top