ArticleBMC public health2020
Epidemiology of the extent of recreational noise exposure and hearing protection use: cross-sectional survey in a nationally representative UK adult population sample.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Annual noise exposure among Malaysian young adults.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Safe Sound: Highlighting Electronic Dance Music Attendees' Unique Hearing Protection Practices.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Recreational Noise Exposure and Hearing Protection Practices Among Syrian Students in Damascus University: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Shedding Light on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccination, and Auditory Symptoms: Causality or Spurious Conjunction?Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Self Reported Hearing Impairments and Associated Risk Factors Among Metal and Woodwork Workers in Gondar Town, North West Ethiopia.Environmental health insights · 2022Article
- Identifying Targets for Interventions to Increase Earplug Use in Noisy Recreational Settings: A Qualitative Interview Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Identifying Targets for Interventions to Increase Uptake and Use of Hearing Protection in Noisy Recreational Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHearing loss is prevalent and disabling, yet little is known about the extent of recreational noise exposure and hearing protection use. The aim of the present research was to estimate the extent of recreational noise exposure and hearing protection use in a sample representative of the UK adult population.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 10,401 UK adults who were representative of the population.
resultsMore than 7000 people (n = 7590, 73.0%) reported exposure to recreational noise excluding headphone and earphone use in the last 12 months. Just 158 people (2.1%) reported wearing hearing protection for every noisy recreational activity. Age (younger people) and beliefs of a behavioral (as opposed to genetic) cause of hearing loss were predictive of both higher recreational noise exposure and greater hearing protection use. Men were more exposed to recreational noise but women were less likely to use hearing protection.
conclusionsFor the first time, the present research quantifies the recreational noise exposure and low levels of hearing protection use in a representative sample of the UK population. The biggest public health gains are likely to be achieved through interventions targeted at younger people and in explaining behavioral (as opposed to genetic) causes of hearing loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.