Hearing screening program impact on noise reduction strategies.

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the New South Wales Rural Hearing Conservation Program on the implementation of personal hearing protection (PHP) and noise management strategies among farmers who had participated in this program in New South Wales, Australia. A follow-up survey of a random sample of people screened through the New South Wales Rural Hearing Conservation Program was linked to their baseline data. The use of PHP at baseline was compared to use at follow-up in four specific scenarios: use with non-cabbed tractors, with chainsaws, with firearms, and in workshops. For non-cabbed tractors, the net gain in PHP use was 13.3%; the net gain was 20.8% for chainsaws, 6.7% for firearms, and 21.3% for workshops. Older farmers and those with a family history of hearing loss were less likely to maintain or improve PHP use. Those with severe hearing loss, males, and participants reporting hearing problems in situations where background noise was present were more likely to maintain or improve PHP use. Forty-one percent of farmers had initiated other strategies to reduce noise exposure beyond the use of PHP, which included engineering, maintenance, and noise avoidance solutions. The early (hopefully) identification of hearing deficit in farmers and farm workers can help promote behavior change and help reinforce a farm culture that supports hearing conservation. The continuation and expansion of hearing screening programs such as these should be encouraged as basic public health strategy in farming communities.

Factors affecting farm noise during common agricultural activities.

Hearing injury due to exposure to excessive noise during common farming activities is a significant problem for farmers. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that affect the level of risk to hearing caused by common farming activities. Noise levels on farms were measured across a range of activities and producer groups, and situational factors that effect noise levels were also investigated. Older tractors were found to be 6 dB louder than newer tractors. Cabs reduced noise to the operator by 16 dB, which was halved to 8 dB if a door was open. Radios added between 3 and 5 dB to the noise in the cab. These variables significantly affect the noise level at the ear of operators and others in the workplace, and affect the subsequent exposure limits that are considered safe. Situational factors need to be considered in assessing the level of risk to farmers' hearing and in choosing noise management strategies on the farm. This information has been incorporated into material about hearing and discussions with farmers who participated in field day hearing screening programs in Australia.

Farm noise emissions during common agricultural activities.

Noise injury in agriculture is a significant yet often unrecognized problem. Many farmers, farm workers, and family members are exposed to noise levels above recommended levels and have greater hearing loss than their non-farming contemporaries. The aim of this study was to gather up-to-date information on farm noise levels and to enhance the quality of information available to assist farmers in reducing noise exposure and meeting Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) regulations regarding noise management. Farm visits were conducted on 48 agricultural establishments that produce a range of commodities. Noise levels were measured at the ears of operators and bystanders involved in typical activities on farms. The average and peak noise levels were measured for 56 types of machinery or sites of farming activity, totaling 298 separate items and activities. Common noise hazards identified included firearms, tractors without cabs, workshop tools, small motors (e.g., chainsaws, augers, pumps), manual handling of pigs, shearing sheds, older cabbed tractors, and heavy machinery such as harvesters, bulldozers, and cotton module presses. We found that use of firearms without hearing protection presents a pressing hearing health priority. However, farming activities involving machinery used for prolonged periods also present significant risks to farmers' hearing health. Noise management strategies on the farm are essential in order to prevent noise injury among farmers.

Does the presentation of audiometric test data have a positive effect on the perceptions of workplace noise and noise exposure avoidance?

Research and 'common knowledge' has for many years accepted that education and feedback supplied to individuals during and immediately after workplace health assessments provides valuable information to workers about their health. Further, if more relevant and detailed information could be supplied then awareness and preventative action may increase proportionately. This research carried out with a rural Australian population has shown that preventative action did not increase in proportion to a corresponding increase in the amount and variety of information provided in connection with hearing health status. Two research groups underwent hearing tests, both with pure tone audiometry (PTA) while the second group also underwent otoacoustic emission (OAE) testing. Test results were presented to the subjects at the conclusion of their test session. An analysis of questionnaire responses at six week and twelve months follow up showed that more information did not result in increased preventative action. Barriers seem to exist such that individuals feel that they are not able to effectively act to reduce overall noise exposure. While self-efficacy initially increased, it declined to close to its initial value over the longer period. Other measures such as perceived susceptibility to hearing loss and the benefits of exposure reduction significantly increased and remained at the same increased level after twelve months. So, while overall awareness of noise and the risks of exposure were increased after both types of hearing test there was no increased hearing health benefit due to additional testing and hearing information.