The Impact of Occupational Noise Exposure on Hyperacusis: a Longitudinal Population Study of Female Workers in Sweden. Issue 4 (23rd December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fredriksson, Sofie; Hussain-Alkhateeb, Laith; Torén, Kjell; Sjöström, Mattias; Selander, Jenny; Gustavsson, Per; Kähäri, Kim; Magnusson, Lennart; Persson Waye, Kerstin
• Is Part Of: Ear and hearing. Volume 43:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 1366
• Page End: 1377
• Publication Date: 2021-12-23
• Subjects: Audiology -- Epidemiology -- Hazard ratio -- Hearing disorder -- Hyperacusis -- Incidence -- Job-exposure matrix -- Longitudinal study -- Occupational medicine -- Occupational noise exposure -- Preschool -- Survival analysis -- Teacher -- Women; Hearing disorders -- Periodicals; Audiology -- Periodicals; 612.85
• DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001194
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0196-0202

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: The aim was to assess the risk of hyperacusis in relation to occupational noise exposure among female workers in general, and among women working in preschool specifically. Design: A retrospective longitudinal study was performed. Survey data were collected in 2013 and 2014 from two cohorts: randomly selected women from the population in region Västra Götaland, Sweden, and women selected based on having received a preschool teacher degree from universities in the same region. The final study sample included n = 8328 women born between 1948 and 1989. Occupational noise exposure was objectively assigned to all time periods from the first to the last reported occupation throughout working life, using the Swedish Job-Exposure Matrix (JEM) with three exposure intervals: <75 dB(A), 75 to 85 dB(A), and >85 dB(A). The JEM assigns preschool teachers to the 75 to 85 dB(A) exposure interval. The outcome hyperacusis was assessed by self-report using one question addressing discomfort or pain from everyday sounds. In the main analysis, a hyperacusis event was defined by the reported year of onset, if reported to occur at least a few times each week. Additional sensitivity analyses were performed using more strict definitions: (a) at least several times each week and (b) every day. The risk (hazard ratio, HR) of hyperacusis was analyzed in relation to years of occupational noise exposure, using survival analysis with frailty regression modeling accounting for individual variation in survival times which reflect, for example, noise exposure during years prior to onset. Occupational noise exposure was defined by the occupation held at year of hyperacusis onset, or the occupation held at the survey year if no event occurred. Models were adjusted for confounders including age, education, income, family history of hearing loss, and change of jobs due to noise. Results: In total, n = 1966 hyperacusis events between 1960 and 2014 were analyzed in the main analysis. A significantly increased risk of hyperacusis was found among women working in any occupation assigned to the 75 to 85 dB(A) noise exposure group [HR: 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4–2.9], compared with the reference group <75 dB(A). The risk was tripled among preschool teachers specifically (HR: 3.4, 95% CI: 3.0–3.7), with the crude Kaplan-Meier curve showing a higher rate of onset early in the working life in preschool teachers compared with all the other exposure groups. The risk was increased, but not statistically significant in the main analysis, for the highest exposure group >85 dB(A), where only six hyperacusis events were identified (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.6–3.1). In the sensitivity analysis, where hyperacusis was defined as occurring every day, the HR was significant also in the highest exposure group (HR: 3.8, 95% CI: 1.4–10.3), and generally slightly higher in the other exposure groups compared to the main analysis. Conclusions: This study indicates increased risk of hyperacusis already below the permissible occupational noise exposure limit in Sweden (85 dB L Aeq, 8h ) among female workers in general, and in particular among preschool teachers. Prospective studies and less wide exposure intervals could confirm causal effects and assess dose–response relationships, respectively, although this study at present suggest a need for risk assessment, improved hearing prevention measures, and noise abatement measures in occupations with noise levels from 75 dB(A). The results could also have implications for management of occupational disability claims.