Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36856807›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023

The relationship between hearing status, listening effort, and the need for recovery in employees of a manufacturing company.

Hanneke E M van der Hoek-Snieders, Jan A P M de Laat, Wouter A Dreschler

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hanneke E M van der Hoek-SniedersDepartment of Clinical & Experimental Audiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.e.vanderhoek@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3947-4399
Jan A P M de LaatDepartment of Audiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Wouter A DreschlerDepartment of Clinical & Experimental Audiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHearing screening can be used to detect hearing loss, but its value for identifying employees with work functioning difficulties is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the association between the hearing status measured with an occupational hearing-in-noise screening test, Listening Effort (LE), and Need For Recovery (NFR) in employees of a manufacturing company, and to examine whether these associations depend on the perceived noise level at the workplace.

methodsEmployees of coatings and paints manufacturing company were included. Their hearing status was assessed with an occupational hearing-in-noise screening test. An online survey was used to assess their LE, NFR, and the perceived noise level at the workplace. Responses from 143 employees were analyzed (mean age = 53 years) using hierarchical multiple regression analysis with the outcomes LE and NFR.

resultsRegression analysis-with adjustments for gender, age, educational level, health status, pace/amount of work, job variety, and work pleasure-revealed that hearing status was significantly associated with LE, but the interaction between hearing status and the perceived noise level was not. Hearing status nor the interaction between hearing status and the perceived noise level was significantly associated with NFR.

conclusionThe results confirm that poorer hearing is associated with higher LE, but not with higher NFR. These associations were unrelated to the perceived noise level at the workplace. Therefore, the value of occupational hearing screening appears to be early identification of hearing loss in employees, but not identification of work functioning difficulties.

Indexed as

DeafnessHearing LossHearing Loss, Noise-InducedAuditory PerceptionHearingHumansListening EffortMiddle AgedNoiseFatigueHearingScreeningWork

Identifiers

PMID36856807
PMCPMC10382391
OpenAlexW4322719911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.