Download PDF
Semin Hear 2013; 34(03): 208-252
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1349352
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

National Research Agenda for the Prevention of Occupational Hearing Loss—Part 2

Christa Themann
2   National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio
,
Alice H. Suter
1   Alice Suter & Associates, Portland, Oregon
,
Mark R. Stephenson
2   National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 August 2013 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

dedication

To Dr. Daniel L. Johnson, whose wisdom and humor will always be missed.

Abstract

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is tasked with generating new knowledge in the field of occupational safety and health and transferring that knowledge into practice for the betterment of workers. In 1996, NIOSH established the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA), which identified occupational hearing loss as a priority research area. The NORA Hearing Loss Team, composed of representatives from industry, academia, labor, professional organizations, and other governmental agencies, has developed a national research agenda for the prevention of occupational hearing loss. This is Part 2 of that document, outlining research needed to address the problem through effective prevention programs.

Keywords

Occupational hearing loss - hearing conservation - hearing loss prevention - noise exposure

notes

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the NIOSH. In addition, citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web sites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.


 

  • References

  • 1 Royster LH, Berger EH, Royster JD. Noise surveys and data analysis. In: Berger EH, Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, Layne M, , eds. The Noise Manual. Revised 5th ed. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2003
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Stephenson MR. Noise exposure characterization via task based analysis. In: Franks J, Casali J, , eds. Proceedings of the Hearing Conservation Conference III/XX. Des Moines, IA: National Hearing Conservation Association; 1995: 63-72
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Seixas NS, Sheppard L, Neitzel R. Comparison of task-based estimates with full-shift measurements of noise exposure. AIHA J (Fairfax, VA) 2003; 64: 823-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Smith RW, Sahl JD, Kelsh MA, Zalinski J. Task-based exposure assessment: analytical strategies for summarizing data by occupational groups. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1997; 58: 402-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burks JA, Michael KL. A new best practice for hearing conservation: the Exposure Smart Protector (ESP). Presented at Noise-Con 2003; Cleveland, OH; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Byrne DC, Reeves ER. Analysis of nonstandard noise dosimeter microphone positions. J Occup Environ Hyg 2008; 5: 197-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mulroy MJ, Henry WR, McNeil PL. Noise-induced transient microlesions in the cell membranes of auditory hair cells. Hear Res 1998; 115: 93-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nordmann AS, Bohne BA, Harding GW. Histopathological differences between temporary and permanent threshold shift. Hear Res 2000; 139: 13-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Johnson DL, Nixon CW, Stephenson MR. Long-duration exposure to intermittent noises. Aviat Space Environ Med 1976; 47: 987-990
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nixon CW, Johnson DL, Stephenson MR. Asymptotic behavior of temporary threshold shift and recovery from 24- and 48-hour noise exposures. Aviat Space Environ Med 1977; 48: 311-315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stephenson MR, Nixon CW, Johnson DL. Identification of the minimum noise level capable of producing an asymptotic temporary threshold shift. Aviat Space Environ Med 1980; 51: 391-396
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 ACGIH. TLVs and BEIs. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Berglund B, Hassmén P, Job RFS. Sources and effects of low-frequency noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 99: 2985-3002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pawlaczyk-Luszczyńska M. Evaluation of occupational exposure to infrasonic noise in Poland. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 1999; 12: 159-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Guest H. Inadequate standards currently applied by local authorities to determine statutory nuisance from LF and infrasound. J Low Freq Noise Vibration Active Control 2003; 22: 1-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 ISO. International Standard. Acoustics: Frequency-Weighting Characteristic for Infrasound Measurements. ISO 7196:1995(E). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Asselineau M, Bockhoff M, Canetto P , et al. Noise at Work 2007: Synthesis Report from Technical Sessions. Available at: http://www.noiseatwork.eu/synthese_naw_2007_eng.pdf . Accessed March 2008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 OSHA. Occupational Noise Exposure: Hearing Conservation Amendment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 1983. . Fed. Reg. 48 (46): 9738–9783, 4078–4179
    Google Scholar
  • 19 OSHA. OSHA instruction CPL 2.103. Inspection documentation. In: Field Inspection Reference Manual; 1994. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/Firm_osha_data/100007.html . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Noise Control Regulation. Report No. 3246. Contract no. DOL-J-9-F-6–0019 for the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.; 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Bartholomae RC, Parker RP. Mining machinery noise control guidelines. In: U.S. Bureau of Mines Handbook. Publication No. 83–600114. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior; 1983
    Google Scholar
  • 22 MSHA. Noise: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 4, 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor; 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 23 MSHA. Preliminary regulatory impact analysis and preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis. Proposed rule: 30 CFR Part 62. RIN 1219–AA53, 1996; available at: http://www.msha.gov/regs/rea/nflx1.htm . Accessed March 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 NIOSH. Proceedings for Control of Workplace Hazards for the 21st Century: Setting the Research Agenda; Conference and Workshop, March 10–12, 1998. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Bruce RD, Wood EW. The USA needs a new national policy for occupational noise. Noise Control Eng J 2003; 51: 162-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 IOM (Institute of Medicine), National Research Council. Hearing Loss Research at NIOSH. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 27 NIOSH. Industrial Noise Control Manual (Revised Edition). By Jensen P, Jokel CR, Miller LN. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1978. . DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 79–117
    Google Scholar
  • 28 NIOSH. Compendium of Materials for Noise Control. By Heedon RA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1980. . DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 80–116
    Google Scholar
  • 29 NIOSH. Noise Control in Underground Metal Mining. By Reeves ER, Randolph RF, Yantek DS, Peterson JS. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2009. . DHHS (NIOSH IC) Publication No. 2010–111, IC 9518
    Google Scholar
  • 30 WorkSafe Australia. Control Guide: Management of Noise at Work. Canberra, Australia: National Occupational Health and Safety Commission of Australia; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 31 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Prevention of Risks from Occupational Noise in Practice. Luxemborg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Asawarungsaengkul K, Nanthavanij S. Design of optimal noise hazard control strategy with budget constraint. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2006; 12: 355-367
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Asawarungsaengkul K, Nanthavanij S, Chalidabhongse J. Decision support system for designing effective noise hazard prevention strategies. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2007; 13: 451-470
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Aluclu I, Dalgic A, Toprak ZF. A fuzzy logic-based model for noise control at industrial workplaces. Appl Ergon 2008; 39: 368-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Pawlaczyk-Luszczyńska M. Evaluation of occupational exposure to infrasonic noise in Poland. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 1999; 12: 159-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 EPA. Noise labeling requirements for hearing protectors. Fed Reg 44(190), 40 CFR Part 211, 56130–56147. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Berger EH, Franks JR, Lindgren F. International review of field studies of hearing protector attenuation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on the Effects of Noise on Hearing; Gothenburg, Sweden; 1994. Available at: http://www.stormingmedia.us/49/4914/A491403.html . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 OSHA. 1999; New developments in hearing protector labeling. In: OSHA technical manual. Washington, DC: OSHA Office of Science Technology and Assessment. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/hcp/attenuation_estimation.html . Accessed July 18, 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 39 NIOSH. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure; Revised Criteria. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1998. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 98–126
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Franks JR, Murphy WJ, Johnson JL, Harris DA. Four earplugs in search of a rating system. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 218-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 ANSI. Methods for Measuring the Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors. ANSI S12.6–2008. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute, Inc.; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 42 EPA. Product noise: labeling hearing protection devices. Fed Reg 74(149)39149–96. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Neitzel R, Somers S, Seixas N. Variability of real-world hearing protector attenuation measurements. Ann Occup Hyg 2006; 50: 679-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Bockstael A, Keppler H, Dhooge I , et al. Effectiveness of hearing protector devices in impulse noise verified with transiently evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Int J Audiol 2008; 47: 119-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Joseph A, Punch J, Stephenson MR, Paneth N, Wolfe E, Murphy WJ. The effects of training format on earplug performance. Int J Audiol 2007; 46: 609-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Murphy WJ, Stephenson MR, Byrne DC, Witt B, Duran J. Effects of training on hearing protector attenuation. Noise Health 2011; 13: 132-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 NHCA/NIOSH/OSHA Alliance. Best Practices Bulletin on Individual Fit Testing for Hearing Protectors; 2009. Available at: http://nhca.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=14 . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Hearing protectors acceptability in noisy environments. Ann Occup Hyg 2002; 46: 531-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Berger EH, Hearing protection devices. In: Berger EH, Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, Layne M. , eds. The Noise Manual. 5th ed. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2000: 379-454
    Google Scholar
  • 50 European Committee for Standardization. European Standard EN 458. Hearing Protectors: Selection, Use, and Maintenance. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization, Technical Committee 159; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Williams W, Dillon H. Hearing protector performance and standard deviation. Noise Health 2005; 7: 51-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Giguère C, Laroche C, Vaillancourt V, Soli S. A predictive model of speech intelligibility in noise for normal and hearing-impaired listeners wearing hearing protectors. In: Proceedings of Inter-Noise 2009; Ottawa, Canada; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Davis RR. What do we know about hearing protector comfort?. Noise Health 2008; 10: 83-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Ivergård TB, Nicholl AG. User tests of ear defenders. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1976; 37: 139-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Park MY, Casali JG. An empirical study of comfort afforded by various hearing protection devices: laboratory versus field results. Appl Acoust 1991; 34: 151-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Brown-Rothwell DJ. The comfort of earplugs: basis for a descriptive model [dissertation]. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Casali JG, Lam ST, Epps BW. Rating and ranking methods for hearing protector wearability. Sound Vibrat 1987; 21: 10-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Casali JG. Comfort: the “other” criterion for hearing protector design and selection. In: Proceedings of the 1992 Hearing Conservation Conference. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, OES Publications; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 59 Bhattacharya SK, Tripathi SR, Kashyap SK. Assessment of comfort of various hearing protection devices (HPD). J Hum Ergol (Tokyo) 1993; 22: 163-172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Hsu YL, Huang CC, Yo CY, Chen CJ, Lien CM. Comfort evaluation of hearing protection. Int J Ind Ergon 2004; 33: 543-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Casali JG, Grenell JF. Noise-attenuating earmuff comfort: a brief review and investigation of band-force, cushion, and wearing-time effects. Appl Acoust 1990; 29: 117-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Brammer AJ, Gongqiang Y, Peterson DR, Bernstein ER, Cherniack MG. Hearing protection and communication in an age of digital signal processing: progress and prospects. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Foxwoods, CT: International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Ray LR, Solbeck JA, Streeter AD, Collier RD. Hybrid feedforward-feedback active noise reduction for hearing protection and communication. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 2026-2036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Chung K. Effective compression and noise reduction configurations for hearing protectors. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 1090-1101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Hughson W, Westlake HD. Manual for program outline for rehabilitation of aural casualties both military and civilian. Trans Am Acad Ophthal Otolaryngol Suppl 1944; 48: 1-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Miltich AJ. An investigation of the feasibility of forced-response techniques employing two-decibel increments in clinical pure-tone threshold determination [dissertation]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 67 Ivarsson A, Erlandsson B, Håkanson H, Nilsson P. Advantages with a new Bekesy audiometer in the measurement of noise-induced hearing loss. In: International Symposium on Effects of Impulse Noise on Hearing. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell Periodical Co.; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 68 Ivarsson A, Toremalm NG, Bennrup S. Computerized audiometry—a facility to prevent hearing damages caused by noise. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1988; 449: 175-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 West PDB, Evans EF. Early detection of hearing damage in young listeners resulting from exposure to amplified music. Br J Audiol 1990; 24: 89-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Zhao F, Stephens D, Meyer-Bisch C. The Audioscan: a high frequency resolution audiometric technique and its clinical applications. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002; 27: 4-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 NIOSH. Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss: A Practical Guide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1996. . DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96–110
    Google Scholar
  • 72 American Academy of Audiology Position Statement: Preventing Noise-Induced Occupational Hearing Loss; 2003. Available at: http://www.audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/Documents/niohlprevention.pdf . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMed
  • 73 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009; 29: 14077-14085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Franks JR, Engel III DP, Themann CL. Real ear attenuation at threshold for three audiometric headphone devices: implications for maximum permissible ambient noise level standards. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 2-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Lankford JE, Perrone DC, Thunder TD. Ambient noise levels in mobile audiometric testing facilities. Am Assoc Occup Health Nurses J 1999; 47: 163-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Frank T, Williams DL. Ambient noise levels in industrial audiometric test rooms. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1994; 55: 433-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Stephenson MR. Is testing 500 Hz necessary when monitoring for occupational hearing loss? In: Proceedings of the National Hearing Conservation Association Annual Conference. Westminster, CO: National Hearing Conservation Association; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 78 Bell-Lehmkuhler B, Meinke DK, Sedey A, Tuell C. Audiometric reliability of insert earphones when used by certified audiometric technicians. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hearing Conservation Conference, Portland, OR; 2008. Available at: http://www.hearingconservation.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=34 . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Rabinowitz PM, Galusha D, Ernst CD, Slade MD. Audiometric “early flags” for occupational hearing loss. J Occup Environ Med 2007; 49: 1310-1316
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Anderson GF, Hussey PS. Population aging: a comparison among industrialized countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000; 19: 191-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Hoffman H, Themann CL. Hearing examination of adults (20 to 69 years old) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999–2004. In: Proceedings of the Meeting of the National Hearing Conservation Association. Westminster, CO: National Hearing Conservation Association; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 82 NIOSH. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Noise. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1972. . DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. HSM 73–11001
    Google Scholar
  • 83 Hoffman HJ, Dobie RA, Ko C-W, Themann CL, Murphy WJ. Americans hear as well or better today compared to 40 years ago: hearing threshold levels in the unscreened adult population of the United States, 1959–62 and 1999–2004. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 151-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Pearson JD, Morrell CH, Gordon-Salant S , et al. Gender differences in a longitudinal study of age-associated hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 1196-1205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 OSHA. Occupational Injury and Illness Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; final rule. 67 Fed. Reg. 44124–7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 86 Plinkert PK, Hemmert W, Wagner W, Just K, Zenner HP. Monitoring noise susceptibility: sensitivity of otoacoustic emissions and subjective audiometry. Br J Audiol 1999; 33: 367-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Lapsley Miller JA, Marshall L, Heller LM, Hughes LM. Low-level otoacoustic emissions may predict susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 280-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Seixas NS, Goldman B, Sheppard L, Neitzel R, Norton S, Kujawa SG. Prospective noise induced changes to hearing among construction industry apprentices. Occup Environ Med 2005; 62: 309-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Lapsley Miller JA, Marshall L, Heller LM. A longitudinal study of changes in evoked otoacoustic emissions and pure-tone thresholds as measured in a hearing conservation program. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: 307-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 O-Uchi T, Kanzaki J, Satoh Y , et al. Age-related changes in evoked otoacoustic emission in normal-hearing ears. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1994; 514: 89-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Cilento BW, Norton SJ, Gates GA. The effects of aging and hearing loss on distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129: 382-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Dunckley KT, Dreisbach LE. Gender effects on high frequency distortion product otoacoustic emissions in humans. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 554-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Sliwinska-Kowalska M, Kotylo P. Otoacoustic emissions in industrial hearing loss assessment. Noise Health 2001; 3: 75-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Gorga MP, Stelmachowicz PG. Temporal characteristics of the acoustic reflex. Audiology 1983; 22: 120-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Sallustio V, Portalatini P, Soleo L , et al. Auditory dysfunction in occupational noise exposed workers. Scand Audiol 1998; 27 (Suppl. 48) 95-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Fausti SA, Frey RH, Henry JA, Olson DJ, Schaffer HI. High-frequency testing techniques and instrumentation for early detection of ototoxicity. J Rehabil Res Dev 1993; 30: 333-341
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Mitchell CR, Ellingson RM, Henry JA, Fausti SA. Use of auditory brainstem responses for the early detection of ototoxicity from aminoglycosides or chemotherapeutic drugs. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41 (3A) 373-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1) 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Coles RR, Lutman ME, Buffin JT. Guidelines on the diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss for medicolegal purposes. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000; 25: 264-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Niskar AS, Kieszak SM, Holmes AE, Esteban E, Rubin C, Brody DJ. Estimated prevalence of noise-induced hearing threshold shifts among children 6 to 19 years of age: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994, United States. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 40-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Rabinowitz PM, Galusha D, Slade MD, Dixon-Ernst C, Sircar KD, Dobie RA. Audiogram notches in noise-exposed workers. Ear Hear 2006; 27: 742-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Hoffman HJ, Ko C-W, Theman CL , et al. Reducing noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) to achieve U.S. Healthy People 2010 goals. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163 (Suppl): S122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Nondahl DM, Shi X, Cruickshanks KJ , et al. Notched audiograms and noise exposure history in older adults. Ear Hear 2009; 30: 696-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Schneider EJ, Mutchler JE, Hoyle HR, Ode EH, Holder BB. The progression of hearing loss from industrial noise exposures. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1970; 31: 368-376
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Borchgrevink HM. Does health promotion work in relation to noise?. Noise Health 2003; 5: 25-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Robinson DW, Shipton MS, Hinchcliffe R. Audiometric zero for air conduction. A verification and critique of international standards. Audiology 1981; 20: 409-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Cohen A, Colligan MJ. Assessing Occupational Safety and Health Training: A Literature Review. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1998. . DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 98:145
    Google Scholar
  • 108 Lusk SL, Kelemen MJ. Predicting use of hearing protection: a preliminary study. Public Health Nurs 1993; 10: 189-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Winett RA. A framework for health promotion and disease prevention programs. Am Psychol 1995; 50: 341-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Cheung CK. Organizational influence on working people's occupational noise protection in Hong Kong. J Safety Res 2004; 35: 465-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Rosenstock I. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. In: Becker MH, , ed. The Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior. Thorofare, NJ: Charles B. Slack, Inc.; 1974: 27-59
    Google Scholar
  • 112 Lusk SL, Ronis DL, Kerr MJ, Atwood JR. Test of the Health Promotion Model as a causal model of workers' use of hearing protection. Nurs Res 1994; 43: 151-157
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Fishbein M. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975
    Google Scholar
  • 114 Raymond III DM, Lusk SL. Testing decisional balance and self-efficacy applied to workers' use of hearing protection. Nurs Res 2006; 55: 328-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot 1996; 10: 282-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Goetzel RZ, Shechter D, Ozminkowski RJ, Marmet PF, Tabrizi MJ, Roemer EC. Promising practices in employer health and productivity management efforts: findings from a benchmarking study. J Occup Environ Med 2007; 49: 111-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Merry CJ. The role of expectancies in workers' compliance with a hearing loss prevention program. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the National Hearing Conservation Association. Westminster, CO: National Hearing Conservation Association; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 118 Stephenson CM, Stephenson MR. Hearing loss prevention for carpenters: part 1—using health communication and health promotion models to develop training that works. Noise Health 2011; 13: 113-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Stephenson MR, Shaw PB, Stephenson CM, Graydon PS. Hearing loss prevention for carpenters: part 2—demonstration projects using individualized and group training. Noise Health 2011; 13: 122-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 120 Stephenson MR. Empowering the worker to prevent hearing loss: the role of education and training. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the National Hearing Conservation Association. Westminster, CO: National Hearing Conservation Association; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 121 Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull 1997; 121: 3-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 122 Latimer AE, Salovey P, Rothman AJ. The effectiveness of gain-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: is all hope lost?. J Health Commun 2007; 12: 645-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 123 Crandell C, Mills TL, Gauthier R. Knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes about hearing loss and hearing protection among racial/ethnically diverse young adults. J Natl Med Assoc 2004; 96: 176-186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 124 Hong O, Lusk SL, Ronis DL. Ethnic differences in predictors of hearing protection behavior between black and white workers. Res Theory Nurs Pract 2005; 19: 63-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 125 Raymond III DM, Hong O, Lusk SL, Ronis DL. Predictors of hearing protection use for Hispanic and non-Hispanic White factory workers. Res Theory Nurs Pract 2006; 20: 127-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 126 Neitzel R, Meischke H, Daniell WE, Trabeau M, Somers S, Seixas NS. Development and pilot test of hearing conservation training for construction workers. Am J Ind Med 2008; 51: 120-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 127 Royster JD, Royster LH. Hearing Conservation Programs: Practical Guidelines for Success. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 128 Cole HP. Cognitive-behavioral approaches to farm community safety education: a conceptual analysis. J Agric Saf Health 2002; 8: 145-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 129 Walters GC, Grusec JE. Punishment. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman; 1977
    Google Scholar
  • 130 Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1985
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 131 Bandura A. Swimming against the mainstream: the early years from chilly tributary to transformative mainstream. Behav Res Ther 2004; 42: 613-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 132 Kurtz JR, Robins TG, Schork MA. An evaluation of peer and professional trainers in a union-based occupational health and safety training program. J Occup Environ Med 1997; 39: 661-671
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 133 Lusk SL, Ronis DL, Kerr MJ. Predictors of hearing protection use among workers: implications for training programs. Hum Factors 1995; 37: 635-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 134 Melamed S, Rabinowitz S, Feiner M, Weisberg E, Ribak J. Usefulness of the protection motivation theory in explaining hearing protection device use among male industrial workers. Health Psychol 1996; 15: 209-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 135 Levenstein S. Is there health in wellness?. J Clin Gastroenterol 1996; 23: 94-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 136 Frank AL. Ethical and practical aspects of human studies. Mutat Res 2001; 480–481: 333-336
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 137 Bem DJ. Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz L, , ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 6. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1972
    Google Scholar
  • 138 Folmer RL, Griest SE, Martin WH. Hearing conservation education programs for children: a review. J Sch Health 2002; 72: 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 139 Martin WH, Sobel JL, Griest SE, Howarth L, Shi Y-B. Noise induced hearing loss in children: preventing the silent epidemic. J Otology 2006; 1: 11-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 140 Martin WH, Meinke D, Howarth L, Sobel J. Dangerous Decibels® Educator Training Manual. Portland, OR: Oregon Health & Science University; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 141 Griest S. Evaluation of a hearing-loss prevention program. Semin Hear 2008; 29: 122-130
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 142 Martin WH. Dangerous decibels: partnership for preventing noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus in children. Semin Hear 2008; 29: 102-110
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 143 Meinke DK, Martin WH, Griest SE, Howarth L, Sobel JL, Scarlotta T. Dangerous decibels I: noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus prevention in children. Noise exposures, epidemiology, detection, interventions and resources. In: Abstracts of the 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem; Foxwoods, CT; July 2008:26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 144 Sobel J, Meikle M. Applying health behavior theory to hearing-conservation interventions. Semin Hear 2008; 29: 81-89
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 145 Dell SM, Holmes AE. The effect of a hearing conservation program on adolescents' attitudes towards noise. Noise Health 2012; 14: 39-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 146 Stephenson MT, Witte K, Vaught C , et al. Using persuasive messages to encourage voluntary hearing protection among coal miners. J Safety Res 2005; 36: 9-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 147 El Dib RP, Verbeek J, Attallah AN, Andriolo RB, Soares BG. Interventions to Promote the Wearing of Hearing Protection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 19 (2) CD005234
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 148 Morata TC. Safe-in-Sound Excellence and Innovation in Hearing Loss Prevention Awards. Presentation at the National Hearing Conservation Association Annual Meeting. Westminster, CO: National Hearing Conservation Association; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 149 National Hearing Conservation Association. Safe In Sound Excellence in Hearing Loss Prevention Award. Winners. Available at: http://www.safeinsound.us/winners.html . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 150 Esler A. Attitude change in an industrial hearing conservation program: comparative effects of directives, educational presentations and individual explanations as persuasive communications. Occup Health Nurs 1978; 26: 15-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 151 Zohar D, Cohen A, Azar N. Promoting increased use of ear protectors in noise through information feedback. Hum Factors 1980; 22: 69-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 152 Purdy S, Williams W. Development of the Noise at Work questionnaire to assess perceptions of noise in the workplace. J Occup Health Safety 2002; 18: 77-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 153 Williams W, Purdy SC, Murray N , et al. Does the presentation of audiometric test data have a positive effect on the perceptions of workplace noise and noise exposure avoidance?. Noise Health 2004; 6: 75-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 154 Lusk SL, Eakin BL, Kazanis AS, McCullagh MC. Effects of booster interventions on factory workers' use of hearing protection. Nurs Res 2004; 53: 53-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 155 Burke MJ, Sarpy SA, Smith-Crowe K, Chan-Serafin S, Salvador RO, Islam G. Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. Am J Public Health 2006; 96: 315-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 156 Kerr MJ, Savik K, Monsen KA, Lusk SL. Effectiveness of computer-based tailoring versus targeting to promote use of hearing protection. Can J Nurs Res 2007; 39: 80-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 157 Dijkstra A, De Vries H, Roijackers J. Targeting smokers with low readiness to change with tailored and nontailored self-help materials. Prev Med 1999; 28: 203-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 158 Bull FC, Jamrozik K, Blanksby BA. Tailored advice on exercise—does it make a difference?. Am J Prev Med 1999; 16: 230-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 159 Riva G. Applications of virtual environments in medicine. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42: 524-534
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 160 Light A . High school employment: National Longitudinal Survey discussion paper. Report No. NLS 95–25. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor; 1995
  • 161 Steinberg L, Cauffman E. The impact of employment on adolescent development. Ann Child Dev 1995; 11: 131-166
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 162 NIOSH. Preventing Deaths, Injuries, and Illnesses of Young Workers. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2003. . DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003–128
    Google Scholar
  • 163 Smith S. Protecting vulnerable workers. Occup Hazards 2004; 66: 25-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 164 Perry MJ, May JJ. Noise and chemical induced hearing loss: special considerations for farm youth. J Agromed 2005; 10: 49-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 165 Rytzner B, Rytzner C. Schoolchildren and noise. The 4 kHz dip-tone screening in 14391 schoolchildren. Scand Audiol 1981; 10: 213-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 166 Broste SK, Hansen DA, Strand RL, Stueland DT. Hearing loss among high school farm students. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 619-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 167 Knobloch MJ, Broste SK. A hearing conservation program for Wisconsin youth working in agriculture. J Sch Health 1998; 68: 313-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 168 Roeser RJ. Industrial hearing conservation programs in the high schools (Protect the Ear Before the 12th Year). Ear Hear 1980; 1: 119-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 169 Allonen-Allie N, Florentine M. Hearing conservation programs in Massachusetts' vocational/technical schools. Ear Hear 1990; 11: 237-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 170 Lukes E, Johnson M. Hearing conservation: an industry-school partnership. J Sch Nurs 1999; 15: 22-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 171 Madison TK. Personal communication to Deanna Meinke. In: Protecting Children's Hearing. Westminster, CO: National Hearing Conservation Association. 2004 . Available at: http://nhca.affiniscape.com/associations/10915/files/3M_HPD_for_Children.pdf . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 172 Berger EH. Recommended hearing protectors for children, toddlers, infants, and newborns. E•A•RCAL Laboratory memo. 2006. Available at: http://www.e-a-r.com/pdf/hearingcons/FAQ%20Kids%20HPDs.pdf . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 173 BLS. Spotlight on statistics: older workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2008/older_workers/ . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 174 Silverstein M. Meeting the challenges of an aging workforce. Am J Ind Med 2008; 51: 269-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 175 Zwerling C, Whitten PS, Davis CS, Sprince NL. Occupational injuries among older workers with visual, auditory, and other impairments. A validation study. J Occup Environ Med 1998; 40: 720-723
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 176 Shin HB, Bruno R. Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. 2003 . Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 177 BLS. The Editor's Desk: Occupations of Foreign-Born Workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2002/jul/wk5/art05.htm . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 178 Mosisa AT. The role of foreign-born workers in the U.S. economy. Mon Labor Rev 2002; 125: 3-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 179 Robertson C, Kerr M, Garcia C, Halterman E. Noise and hearing protection: Latino construction workers' experiences. AAOHN J 2007; 55: 153-160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 180 Rabinowitz PM, Duran R. Is acculturation related to use of hearing protection?. AIHA J 2001; 62: 611-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 181 National Center for Health Statistics. Prevalence and Characteristics of Persons with Hearing Trouble: United States, 1990–1991. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 10, Publication No. 188. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 182 Rösler G. Progression of hearing loss caused by occupational noise. Scand Audiol 1994; 23: 13-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 183 Ward WD, Royster JD, Royster LH. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise. In: Berger EH, Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, Layne M, , eds. The Noise Manual. 5th ed. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2003: 123-147
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 184 Abel SM, Armstrong NM, Giguère C. Auditory perception with level-dependent hearing protectors. The effects of age and hearing loss. Scand Audiol 1993; 22: 71-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 185 Abel SM, Spencer DL. Active noise reduction versus conventional hearing protection. Relative benefits for normal-hearing and impaired listeners. Scand Audiol 1997; 26: 155-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 186 Reeves ER. Development of a speech intelligibility-based method of hearing protector selection [dissertation]. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 187 Viljoen DA, Nie V, Guest M. Is there a risk to safety when working in the New South Wales underground coal-mining industry while having binaural noise-induced hearing loss?. Intern Med J 2006; 36: 180-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 188 Picard M, Girard SA, Simard M, Larocque R, Leroux T, Turcotte F. Association of work-related accidents with noise exposure in the workplace and noise-induced hearing loss based on the experience of some 240,000 person-years of observation. Accid Anal Prev 2008; 40: 1644-1652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 189 Morata TC, Themann CL, Randolph RF, Verbsky BL, Byrne DC, Reeves ER. Working in noise with a hearing loss: perceptions from workers, supervisors, and hearing conservation program managers. Ear Hear 2005; 26: 529-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 190 OSHA. Innovative Workplace Safety Accommodations for Hearing-Impaired Workers. Safety and Health Information Bulletin: SHIB 07–22–2005; 2005. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib072205.html . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 191 OSHA. Hearing Conservation for the Hearing-Impaired Worker. Safety and Health Information Bulletin: SHIB 12–27–2005; 2005. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib122705.html . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 192 Verbsky BL. Effects of conventional passive earmuffs, uniformly attenuating passive earmuffs, and hearing aids on speech intelligibility in noise [doctoral dissertation]. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 193 ANSI/ASSE. A10.46–2007: American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations: Hearing Loss Prevention for Construction and Demolition Workers. Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Safety Engineers; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 194 Suter AH. Standards and regulations. In: Berger EH, Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, Layne M, , eds. The Noise Manual. 5th ed. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2003: 639-668
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 195 Gasaway DC. Documentation: the weak link in audiometric monitoring programs. Occup Health Saf 1985; 54: 28-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 196 Ehrenberg RL, Sniezek III JE. Development of a standard questionnaire for occupational health research. Am J Public Health 1989; 79 (Suppl): 15-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 197 Lippmann M, Gomez MR, Rawls GM. Data elements for occupational exposure databases: guidelines and recommendations for airborne hazards and noise. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1996; 11: 1294-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 198 AHIMA-AMIA. The value of personal health records: a joint position statement for consumers of health care. American Health Information Management Association and American Medical Informatics Association. J AHIMA 2007; 78: 22-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 199 Daniell WE, Swan SS, McDaniel MM, Camp JE, Cohen MA, Stebbins JG. Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States. Occup Environ Med 2006; 63: 343-351 [Erratum 2006;63:436]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 200 Wolgemuth KS, Luttrell WE, Kamhi AG, Wark DJ. The effectiveness of the Navy's hearing conservation program. Mil Med 1995; 160: 219-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 201 Rabinowitz PM, Galusha D, Dixon-Ernst C, Slade MD, Cullen MR. Do ambient noise exposure levels predict hearing loss in a modern industrial cohort?. Occup Environ Med 2007; 64: 53-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 202 Simpson TH, Stewart M, Kaltenbach JA. Early indicators of hearing conservation program performance. J Am Acad Audiol 1994; 5: 300-306
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 203 Lee-Feldstein A. Five-year follow-up study of hearing loss at several locations within a large automobile company. Am J Ind Med 1993; 24: 41-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 204 Franks JR, Davis RR, Kreig Jr EF. Analysis of a hearing conservation program data base: factors other than workplace noise. Ear Hear 1989; 10: 273-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 205 Pell S. An evaluation of a hearing conservation program—a five-year longitudinal study. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1973; 34: 82-91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 206 Simpson TH. Short term audiometric variability as a predictor of long term hearing conservation program performance. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the National Hearing Conservation Association. Westminster, CO: National Hearing Conservation Association; 1993
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 207 Simpson TH, Stewart M, Kaltenbach JA. Effects of audiometric threshold step size on proposed ANSI S12.13 outcomes for characterizing hearing conservation program effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4: 258-263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 208 Simpson TH, Amos N, Rintelmann WF. Effects of pre-existing hearing loss on proposed ANSI S12.13 outcomes for characterizing hearing conservation program effectiveness: follow-up investigation. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9: 112-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 209 Adera T, Donahue AM, Malit BD, Gaydos JC. Assessment of the proposed Draft American National Standard method for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs. J Occup Med 1993; 35: 568-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 210 Adera T, Donahue AM, Malit BD, Gaydos JC. An epidemiologic method for assessing the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs using audiometric data. Mil Med 1993; 158: 698-701
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 211 Adera T, Gullickson GM, Helfer T, Wang L, Gardner JW. Should the audiometric database analysis method (draft ANSI S12.13-1991) for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs be accepted as a US national standard?. J Am Acad Audiol 1995; 6: 302-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 212 ANSI . Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Conservation Programs through Audiometric Data Base Analysis. ANSI S12.13 TR-2002. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute, Inc.; 2002
  • 213 Adera T, Amir C, Anderson L. Use of comparison populations for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention programs. AIHA J 2000; 61: 11-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 214 NIOSH. Industrial Audiometric Data. NTIS Order No. PB88–117916. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1987
    Google Scholar
  • 215 ANSI. Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of Noise-Induced Hearing Impairment. ANSI S3.44–1996(R2006). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute, Inc.; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 216 Prince MM, Colligan MJ, Stephenson CM, Bischoff BJ. The contribution of focus groups in the evaluation of hearing conservation program (HCP) effectiveness. J Safety Res 2004; 35: 91-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 217 Simpson TH, Stewart M, Hecksel MR. Performance evaluation of hearing conservation program data in small companies. In: Proceedings of the 1992 Hearing Conservation Conference. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, OES Publications; 1992: 25-32
    Google Scholar
  • 218 Verbeek JH, Kateman E, Morata TC, Dreschler W, Sorgdrager B. Interventions to prevent occupational noise induced hearing loss. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (3) CD006396 . Available at: www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD006396/frame.html . Accessed July 18, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 219 Bertsche PK, Mensah E, Stevens T. Complying with a corporate global noise health surveillance procedure—do the benefits outweigh the costs?. AAOHN J 2006; 54: 369-378
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 220 Lalande NM, Lambert J, Riverin L. Quantification of the psychosocial disadvantages experienced by workers in a noisy industry and their nearest relatives: perspectives for rehabilitation. Audiology 1988; 27: 196-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 221 Lalande NM, Riverin L, Lambert J. Occupational hearing loss: an aural rehabilitation program for workers and their spouses, characteristics of the program and target group (participants and nonparticipants). Ear Hear 1988; 9: 248-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 222 Northern JL, Zarnoch JM. Aural rehabilitation in noise induced hearing loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1979; 12: 693-703
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 223 Sedge RK. Aural rehabilitation for individuals with high frequency hearing loss. J Acad Rehabil 1979; 12: 47-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 224 Getty L, Hétu R. Development of a rehabilitation program for people affected with occupational hearing loss. 2. Results from group intervention with 48 workers and their spouses. Audiology 1991; 30: 317-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 225 Hallberg LRM, Barrenäs ML. Group rehabilitation of middle-aged males with noise-induced hearing loss and their spouses: evaluation of short- and long-term effects. Br J Audiol 1994; 28: 71-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 226 Hallberg LRM, Barrenäs ML. Coping with noise-induced hearing loss: experiences from the perspective of middle-aged male victims. Br J Audiol 1995; 29: 219-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 227 Westbrook MT, Hogan A, Pennay M, Legge V. Workers' reactions to their noise-induced hearing loss: acknowledgement versus avoidance. J Occup Health Safety Aust NZ 1992; 8: 237-242
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 228 Getty L, Hétu R . Développement d'un programme de réadaptation á l'intention des personnes atteintes de surdité professionnelle et de leur conjointe ou conjoint: Guide de formation. Québec : Conseil Québécois de la Recherche Sociale; 1990
  • 229 Kopke RD, Jackson RL, Coleman JKM, Liu J, Bielefeld EC, Balough BJ. NAC for noise: from the bench top to the clinic. Hear Res 2007; 226: 114-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 230 Ohlemiller KK. Oxidative cochlear injury and the limitations of anti-oxidant therapy. Semin Hear 2003; 24: 123-133
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 231 Henderson D, Bielefeld EC, Harris KC, Hu BH. The role of oxidative stress in noise-induced hearing loss. Ear Hear 2006; 27: 1-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 232 Canlon B, Henderson D, Salvi R. Pharmacological strategies for prevention and treatment of hearing loss and tinnitus. Hear Res 2007; 226: 1-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 233 Le Prell CG, Yamashita D, Minami SB, Yamasoba T, Miller JM. Mechanisms of noise-induced hearing loss indicate multiple methods of prevention. Hear Res 2007; 226: 22-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 234 Le Prell CG, Hughes LF, Miller JM. Free radical scavengers vitamins A, C, and E plus magnesium reduce noise trauma. Free Radic Biol Med 2007; 42: 1454-1463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 235 Hawkins JE, Schacht J. Sketches of otohistory. Part 10: noise-induced hearing loss. Audiol Neurootol 2005; 10: 305-309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 236 Zheng JL, Keller G, Gao WQ. Immunocytochemical and morphological evidence for intracellular self-repair as an important contributor to mammalian hair cell recovery. J Neurosci 1999; 19: 2161-2170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 237 Izumikawa M, Minoda R, Kawamoto K , et al. Auditory hair cell replacement and hearing improvement by Atoh1 gene therapy in deaf mammals. Nat Med 2005; 11: 271-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 238 Ryals BM, Cunningham L. A primer on biology of hair cell regeneration, rescue, and repair. Semin Hear 2003; 24: 99-110
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 239 Hildebrand MS, Newton SS, Gubbels SP , et al. Advances in molecular and cellular therapies for hearing loss. Mol Ther 2008; 16: 224-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 240 Berger EH. Noise control and hearing conservation: why do it?. In: Berger EH, Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, Layne M, , eds. The Noise Manual. 5th ed. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2003: 1-17
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 241 Niskar AS, Kieszak SM, Holmes A, Esteban E, Rubin C, Brody DJ. Prevalence of hearing loss among children 6 to 19 years of age: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA 1998; 279: 1071-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 242 Weichbold V, Zorowka P. Effects of a hearing protection campaign on the discotheque attendance habits of high-school students. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: 489-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 243 Weichbold V, Zorowka P. Can a hearing education campaign for adolescents change their music listening behavior?. Int J Audiol 2007; 46: 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 244 Randolph RF, Hudak RL, Vaught C. Communicating hearing loss information to young children effectiveness of lecture and printed materials. AAOHN J 2003; 51: 433-438
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 245 Karlsmose B, Lauritzen T, Engberg M, Parving A. A randomised controlled trial of screening for adult hearing loss during preventive health checks. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51: 351-355
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 246 King RL, Barry B, Brooks DN. Effectiveness of publicity campaign encouraging earlier referral of hearing loss in adults. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987; 294: 1342-1343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 247 ASHA. Media donates millions in public service announcements to ASHA campaign. Assoc Manage 2001; 53: 32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 248 Wallack L, Dorfman L, Woodruff K. Communications and public health. In: Scutchfield FD, Keck CW, , eds. Principles of Public Health Practice. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 249 Daniel E. Noise and hearing loss: a review. J Sch Health 2007; 77: 225-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 250 CDC. Cigarette smoking among adults: United States, 1990. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1992; 41: 361-362
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 251 Joy GJ, Middendorf PJ. Noise exposure and hearing conservation in U.S. coal mines—a surveillance report. J Occup Environ Hyg 2007; 4: 26-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 252 Svensson EB, Morata TC, Nylén P, Krieg EF, Johnson A-C. Beliefs and attitudes among Swedish workers regarding the risk of hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: 585-593
    PubMedGoogle Scholar