Prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed workers within the services sector, 2006-2015.
Nimarpreet K Sekhon, Elizabeth A Masterson, Christa L Themann
PMID 32608279WHAT IT FOUND
Hearing loss is highly prevalent among noise-exposed service workers, not just in traditional industrial jobs.
Specific office and administrative roles, such as those in credit unions, software publishing, and public administration, showed prevalence rates between 26% and 33%, indicating a need for broader hearing conservation in the service sector.
Key findings
01The prevalence of hearing loss among noise-exposed workers in the Services sector was 17%, which is very close to the 16% prevalence found in all industries combined.
02Sub-sectors presumed to be low-risk showed high prevalence rates, including 33% in Credit Intermediation and Related Activities and 28% in Administration of Economic Programs.
03Workers in Public Administration sub-sectors had significantly higher adjusted risks of hearing loss compared to the reference industry, with Courts showing a 41% prevalence and Administration of Urban Planning showing a 50% prevalence.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The data is from a convenience sample of audiometric providers, so it may not represent all noise-exposed workers, with heavy representation from the Midwest. Work-relatedness of hearing loss is inferred because medical records were not available, although audiograms with patterns suggesting other etiologies were excluded. Specific noise exposure levels for individual workers were not available; exposure was assumed based on regulatory requirements for the industry. Only the latest audiogram per worker was analyzed, which might miss temporary threshold shifts or progression of loss over time. The reference industry (Couriers and Messengers) also consisted of noise-exposed workers, which may underestimate the true relative risk for the Services sector.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that low prevalence in certain service sub-sectors (like restaurants or landscaping) means those workers are safe. The study notes that many of these industries are not required to have audiometric testing, so the workers in the sample may not be representative of the entire workforce, and the 'low' numbers may reflect a lack of surveillance rather than a lack of damage.