IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i21p11693-d673957.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Chanbeom Kwak

    (Laboratory of Hearing and Technology, Research Institute of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea
    Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea)

  • Woojae Han

    (Laboratory of Hearing and Technology, Research Institute of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea
    Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea)

Abstract

To prevent intensive noise exposure in advance and be safely controlled during such exposure, hearing protection devices (HPDs) have been widely used by workers. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of these HPDs, partitioned into three different outcomes, such as sound attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception. Seven electronic journal databases were used to search for published articles from 2000 to 2021. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. For a systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model. The funnel plot and Egger’s regression analysis were conducted to assess the risk of bias. From the overall results of the included 20 articles, we found that the HPD function performed significantly well for their users (SMDs: 0.457, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.034–0.881, p < 0.05). Specifically, a subgroup analysis showed a meaningful difference in sound attenuation (SMDs: 1.080, 95% CI: 0.167–1.993, p < 0.05) when to wear and not to wear HPDs, but indicated no significance between the groups for sound localization (SMDs: 0.177, 95% CI: 0.540–0.894, p = 0.628) and speech perception (SMDs: 0.366, 95% CI: −0.100–1.086, p = 0.103). The HPDs work well for their originally designated purposes without interfering to find the location of the sound sources and for talking between the workers. Taking into account various factors, such as the characteristics of the users, selection of appropriate types, and fitting methods for wearing in different circumstances, seems to be necessary for a reliable systematic analysis in terms of offering the most useful information to the workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Chanbeom Kwak & Woojae Han, 2021. "The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11693-:d:673957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11693/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11693/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giuseppe Alberti & Daniele Portelli & Cosimo Galletti, 2023. "Healthcare Professionals and Noise-Generating Tools: Challenging Assumptions about Hearing Loss Risk," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(15), pages 1-15, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11693-:d:673957. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.