Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Which interventions increase hearing protection...

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Which interventions increase hearing protection behaviors during noisy recreational activities?: A systematic review

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineReview articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Which interventions increase hearing protection behaviors during noisy recreational activities? A systematic review. / Loughran, Michael; Lyons, Stephanie; Plack, Christopher et al.
In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 20, 1376, 13.09.2020.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineReview articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Loughran M, Lyons S, Plack C, Armitage C. Which interventions increase hearing protection behaviors during noisy recreational activities? A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020 Sept 13;20:1376. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09414-w

Author

Bibtex

@article{6ff38ffb10d74121833722a8858bbdb8,
title = "Which interventions increase hearing protection behaviors during noisy recreational activities?: A systematic review",
abstract = "BackgroundHearing loss and tinnitus are global concerns that can be reduced through hearing protection behaviors (e.g., earplug use). Little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to increase hearing protection use in recreational domains. For the first time we review systematically the effectiveness of such interventions.MethodsSystematic searches of nine databases, as well as grey literature and hand-searching, were conducted. Any study design was included if it assessed quantitatively a purposeful attempt to increase hearing protection in recreational settings. Studies were excluded if they assessed noise exposure from occupational sources and headphones/earphones, as these have been reviewed elsewhere. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42018098573.ResultsEight studies were retrieved following the screening of 1908 articles. Two pretest-posttest studies detected a small to medium effect (d ≥ 0·3 ≤ 0·5), one a small effect (d ~ =0·2) and two no real effect. Three posttest experimental studies detected small to medium effects (d ≥ 0·3 ≤ 0·5). Studies were rated as “poor quality” and 17 out of a possible 93 behavior change techniques were coded, with the majority targeting the intervention function {\textquoteleft}education{\textquoteright}.ConclusionsHearing loss and tinnitus due to recreational noise exposure are major public health concerns yet very few studies have examined preventive interventions. The present systematic review sets the agenda for the future development and testing of evidence-based interventions designed to prevent future hearing loss and tinnitus caused by noise in recreational settings, by recommending systematic approaches to intervention design, and implementation of intervention functions beyond education, such as incentivization, enablement and modeling.",
author = "Michael Loughran and Stephanie Lyons and Christopher Plack and Christopher Armitage",
year = "2020",
month = sep,
day = "13",
doi = "10.1186/s12889-020-09414-w",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "BMC",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which interventions increase hearing protection behaviors during noisy recreational activities?

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Loughran, Michael

AU - Lyons, Stephanie

AU - Plack, Christopher

AU - Armitage, Christopher

PY - 2020/9/13

Y1 - 2020/9/13

N2 - BackgroundHearing loss and tinnitus are global concerns that can be reduced through hearing protection behaviors (e.g., earplug use). Little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to increase hearing protection use in recreational domains. For the first time we review systematically the effectiveness of such interventions.MethodsSystematic searches of nine databases, as well as grey literature and hand-searching, were conducted. Any study design was included if it assessed quantitatively a purposeful attempt to increase hearing protection in recreational settings. Studies were excluded if they assessed noise exposure from occupational sources and headphones/earphones, as these have been reviewed elsewhere. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42018098573.ResultsEight studies were retrieved following the screening of 1908 articles. Two pretest-posttest studies detected a small to medium effect (d ≥ 0·3 ≤ 0·5), one a small effect (d ~ =0·2) and two no real effect. Three posttest experimental studies detected small to medium effects (d ≥ 0·3 ≤ 0·5). Studies were rated as “poor quality” and 17 out of a possible 93 behavior change techniques were coded, with the majority targeting the intervention function ‘education’.ConclusionsHearing loss and tinnitus due to recreational noise exposure are major public health concerns yet very few studies have examined preventive interventions. The present systematic review sets the agenda for the future development and testing of evidence-based interventions designed to prevent future hearing loss and tinnitus caused by noise in recreational settings, by recommending systematic approaches to intervention design, and implementation of intervention functions beyond education, such as incentivization, enablement and modeling.

AB - BackgroundHearing loss and tinnitus are global concerns that can be reduced through hearing protection behaviors (e.g., earplug use). Little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to increase hearing protection use in recreational domains. For the first time we review systematically the effectiveness of such interventions.MethodsSystematic searches of nine databases, as well as grey literature and hand-searching, were conducted. Any study design was included if it assessed quantitatively a purposeful attempt to increase hearing protection in recreational settings. Studies were excluded if they assessed noise exposure from occupational sources and headphones/earphones, as these have been reviewed elsewhere. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42018098573.ResultsEight studies were retrieved following the screening of 1908 articles. Two pretest-posttest studies detected a small to medium effect (d ≥ 0·3 ≤ 0·5), one a small effect (d ~ =0·2) and two no real effect. Three posttest experimental studies detected small to medium effects (d ≥ 0·3 ≤ 0·5). Studies were rated as “poor quality” and 17 out of a possible 93 behavior change techniques were coded, with the majority targeting the intervention function ‘education’.ConclusionsHearing loss and tinnitus due to recreational noise exposure are major public health concerns yet very few studies have examined preventive interventions. The present systematic review sets the agenda for the future development and testing of evidence-based interventions designed to prevent future hearing loss and tinnitus caused by noise in recreational settings, by recommending systematic approaches to intervention design, and implementation of intervention functions beyond education, such as incentivization, enablement and modeling.

U2 - 10.1186/s12889-020-09414-w

DO - 10.1186/s12889-020-09414-w

M3 - Review article

VL - 20

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

M1 - 1376

ER -