Noise Exposure, Headsets, and Auditory and Nonauditory Symptoms in Call Center Operators.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the exposure of call center operators (CCOs) to occupational noise, its association with auditory and nonauditory symptoms, and the feasibility of monaural and binaural headsets. METHOD: We measured the noise exposure sound pressure levels (SPLs) with the microphone-in-real-ear technique and administered a questionnaire on auditory/nonauditory symptoms and headset preference. RESULTS: We assessed 79 CCOs with normal hearing. Overall, 98.7% of the participants reported at least one auditory symptom, and 88.6% reported at least one nonauditory symptom after using the headset. We found significant associations between the headset volume setting and the number of auditory and nonauditory symptoms and between sharp increases in sound level and tinnitus. The microphone-in-real-ear diffuse-field-related SPLs with monaural headsets (85.5 dBA) were significantly higher than those with binaural headsets (83.1 dBA). Binaural headsets were the preference of 84.8% of the subjects. The SPLs of the binaural headsets were significantly lower than those of the monaural headsets in the subjects who preferred the binaural headsets. CONCLUSIONS: CCOs with normal hearing reported auditory and nonauditory symptoms, highlighting the need for attention and further investigation. The binaural headsets were preferable, as they were associated with a lower SPL and a higher call quality. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.18361463.

Tablet-Based Hearing Screening Test.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss (HL) affects people worldwide, many of whom are children. Especially in developing countries, epidemiological data on the prevalence of HL are insufficient to implement effective health promotion programs. In this preliminary study with young adults, we describe and validate a tablet-based hearing screening test developed for interactive remote hearing screening and compare the performance of an audiometry screening tablet application with conventional audiometry. In addition, the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the tablet-based method and the concordance between the two methods were analyzed. METHODS: Thirty volunteers participated in a double-blind study assessing two auditory threshold screening methods: tablet-based hearing screening and sweep audiometry. For both methods, a correct response to a minimum of two tones out of three emitted at 20 dBHL for the frequencies of 1, 2, and 4 kHz and 30 dBHL for 0.5 kHz in both ears, was considered a negative screening result (normal hearing), whereas hearing impairment was considered a positive screening result. RESULTS: According to both methods, 26 participants had normal hearing and four had HL. The Kappa coefficient indicated perfect concordance between methods. The tablet-based hearing screening method had a sensitivity of 100% (confidence interval [CI]: 30.5-100.0), a specificity of 100% (CI: 87.1-100.0), a positive predictive value of 100% (CI: 30.5-100.0), and a negative predictive value of 100% (CI: 87.1-100.0). CONCLUSIONS: The tablet-based hearing screening test was shown to be a reliable and an accurate method for hearing screening that can be used effectively in places with Internet access and where local audiologists are not available.