E.E. Adeninskaya – Ph.D. (Med.), Head of the Research Center of Occupational Medicine and Industrial Hygiene, Civil Aviation of Central Clinical Hospital of Civil Aviation (CDB GA) (Moscow)
N.B. Zabrodina – Dr. Sc. (Med.), Chief Physician, Civil Aviation of Central Clinical Hospital of Civil Aviation (CDB GA) (Moscow)
S.Ya. Kosyakov – Dr. Sc. (Med.), Professor, Head of the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Russian Medical Academy of Post-graduate Education (Moscow)
A.D. Volgareva – Ph.D. (Med.), Senior Research Scientist, Ufa Research Institute of Occupational Health and Human Ecology
N.I. Simonova – Dr. Sc. (Med.), Professor, Director of the Department of Science, Klin Institute of Safety and Working Condi-tions (Klin, Moscow region)
E.N. Ilkaeva –Dr. Sc. (Med.), Otolaryngologist, Family Medical Center “GD-Meditsina (City of childhood)” (Moscow)
Objects of research – 1568 persons of working age (917 men, 651 women). The study was conducted on the principle of a sim-ple random sample with a survey on specially designed questionnaires with the inclusion of a short version of the who question-naire on quality of life. Account of gender, age, profession, mode of work, working conditions, experience, fatigue at work, place of residence, living conditions, self-reported health, self-reported hearing noise and reaction to noise on the production and out of production, attitude towards a healthy lifestyle, Smoking, alcohol, life satisfaction, the impact of hearing loss on quality of life. The importance of psychosocial factors was judged by the proportion of respondents who chose the appropriate answer: with a specific weight of less than 25%, the factor was considered to be of little importance for the analyzed cohort, from 26 to 50% – moderately significant, from 51 to 75% – highly significant and more than 75% – very high. To quantify the indicators using a four-point scale (answers like: Yes, rather Yes than no, rather no than Yes, no) used an integral indicator calculated by the for-mula:In = [(a – d) + (b – c)/2]/n,where «a» – is the number of respondents who gave a positive assessment of the sign; «b» is the number of respondents who gave a rating of «more positive than negative»; «c» – the number of respondents who gave a rating of «rather negative than positive»; «d» – the number of respondents who gave a negative evaluation; «n» – is the total number of respondents to the question.Working conditions of employees were additionally assessed by objective indicators (sanitary and hygienic characteristics of working conditions). Correlation analysis was used for comparative analysis. The significance of the differences was calculated using student's t-test for continuous and Fisher's criteria and χ-squared for ca-tegorical variables. All factors with a significance level less than 0.05 were considered significant. By occupation, 37.0% of the respondents were workers, 9.6% – members of civil aviation flight crews, 26.5% – education and health workers, 11.2% – workers engaged in trade and provision of services to the population, 12.7% – able-bodied population temporarily unemployed at the time of the survey. In the group of workers, an independent subgroup of the hearing impaired (100 people, 6.4%) was allocated, who worked on the mechanical equipment of an industrial enterprise. The median age was 39.9±6.3 years. It was found that hearing loss in working age has an extremely high medical and social significance and is equated with normal hearing people to the loss of at least 60% of "all health", and workers with reduced hearing – not less than 70%. A model of prevention of sensorineural hearing loss, which is based on the principles of social partnership of all participants in the system of labor relations.
- Löhler J., Walther L.E., Hansen F., Kapp P., Meerpohl J., Wollenberg B., Schönweiler R., Schmucker C. The prevalence of hearing loss and use of hearing aids among adults in Germany: a systematic review // Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019. Apr. V. 276(4). P. 945–956.
- Graydon K., Waterworth C., Miller H., Gunasekera H. Global burden of hearing impairment and ear disease // J. Laryngol. Otol. 2019 Jan. V. 133(1). P. 18–25.
- Jaiyeola M.T., Adeyemo A.A. Quality of life of deaf and hard of hearing students in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria // PLoS One. 2018. Jan. V. 2. № 13(1). P. e0190130.
- Garramiola-Bilbao I., Rodríguez-Álvarez A. Linking hearing impairment, employment and education // Public Health. 2016. Dec. V. 141. P. 130–135.
- McRackan T.R., Hand B.N. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium, Velozo C.A., Dubno J.R. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global) // J. Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019. Sep. V. 20. № 62(9). P. 3554–3563.
- Le T.N., Straatman L.V., Lea J., Westerberg B. Current insights in noise-induced hearing loss: a literature review of the underlying mechanism, pathophysiology, asymmetry, and management options // Journal of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery. 2017. V. 46. P. 41.
- Clark C., Paunovic K. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Quality of Life, Wellbeing and Mental Health // Int. J. Environ Res. Public Health. 2018. Oct. V. 29. № 15(11). P. E2400.
- Ma J., Li C., Kwan M.P., Chai Y. A Multilevel Analysis of Perceived Noise Pollution, Geographic Contexts and Mental Health in Beijing // Int. J. Environ Res Public Health. 2018. Jul. V. 13. № 15(7). P. E1479.
- Ribeiro UASL, Souza V.C., Lemos S.M.A. Quality of life and social determinants in individual hearing AIDS users // Codas. 2019. Apr. V. 1. № 31(2). P. e20170287.
- Mirza, Raúl, Kirchner, Bruce, Dobie, Robert A. Crawford, James Task Force on Occupational Hearing Loss // Journal of Occupa-tional and Environmental Medicine. 2018. V. 60. Iss. 9. P. 498–501.
- Kostenko N.A. Usloviya truda i professional'naya zabolevaemost' v nekotoryh otraslyah ekonomicheskoj deyatel'nosti Rossijskoj Federacii v 2004–2013 gg. // Med TrPromEkol. 2015. V. 4. S. 43–5.