The contribution of focus groups in the evaluation of hearing conservation program (HCP) effectiveness.

PROBLEM: Exclusive reliance on such practices as policy review, audiometric testing audits, and noise surveillance to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace hearing conservation programs (HCP) fails to capture the impact of these programs as experienced by workers at the "shop floor" and offers little insight into the reasons and potential remedies for noted deficiencies. METHODS: A qualitative approach for evaluating industrial HCPs (and their various components) is discussed using three industrial populations as case studies. For each study population, this paper illustrates how focus groups, comprised of line workers and supervisors, were used to clarify and augment information gathered through more traditional program assessments to provide a more enriched picture of hearing conservation practices. Descriptive data on plant hearing conservation program practices at each plant are presented with a comparison of proactive elements of each program relative to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hearing Conservation Amendment (HCA) requirement and to internal plant policy. RESULTS: Yearly program evaluation with input from all end-users is important in the process of hearing loss prevention. The qualitative assessment outlined in this paper serves as a basis for future quantitative assessments of HCP effectiveness using hearing threshold data and noise exposure assessments to examine changes in hearing levels as a function of noise exposure and other risk factors for hearing loss.

Ethical issues in occupational health research.

This is an overview of ethical issues in occupational health research involving human subjects. Research that requires human subjects review must be distinguished from surveillance or public health practice. Confidentiality and privacy concerns are particularly important in an occupational setting because individual participants may be identifiable through job title or other characteristics, and because there may be concerns about employment discrimination associated with participation status or results. Additional issues include notification of individual test results to the study participants, including whether the results have clinical significance and/or provide other potentially relevant information to the study subjects; consent for banking of biological specimens for future research (e.g., uses of the specimens, plans for anonymization, notification of future results); and the higher level of sensitivity of workplace studies involving genetic modifiers of risk. Many occupational studies involve no more than minimal risk. Studies that involve greater than minimal risk require the investigator to document the potential risks and attempt to minimize them.