TY - JOUR
T1 - The prevalence of occupational exposure to noise
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury
AU - Teixeira, Liliane R.
AU - Pega, Frank
AU - de Abreu, Wagner
AU - de Almeida, Marcia S.
AU - de Andrade, Carlos A.F.
AU - Azevedo, Tatiana M.
AU - Dzhambov, Angel M.
AU - Hu, Weijiang
AU - Macedo, Marta R.V.
AU - Martínez-Silveira, Martha S.
AU - Sun, Xin
AU - Zhang, Meibian
AU - Zhang, Siyu
AU - Correa da Silva, Denise T.
N1 - Funding Information:
For the eight included studies, this bias was rated “high” for one study due to two researchers providing consultant services/work to industry ( Rabinowitz et al., 2007 ). One study was rated as “probably high” because the research was funded by grant from industry ( Cantley et al., 2015 ). Two studies were rated as “probably low” because there was indirect evidence which suggested the study was free of support from a company, study author or other entity having a financial interest in the outcome of the study ( Stokholm et al., 2013; Virkkunen et al., 2005 ) ( Fig. 2 ).
Funding Information:
We thank Paul Whaley (Lancaster University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and Tim Driscoll (University of Sydney, Australia) for the editorial guidance and support. We also thank Ivan Ivanov (WHO), Nancy Leppink (ILO) and Yuka Ujita (ILO) for their coordination and other support for this systematic review; Marco A.N. de Ara?jo (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Brazil) for the contributions at an early stage of the systematic review; Carel TJ Hulshof (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Grace Sembajwe (Hofstra University, United States of America), Flavia Torre?o Thiemann (Physics Institute of S?o Carlos, University of S?o Paulo, Brazil), and Otavio Henrique Thiemann (Physics Institute of S?o Carlos, University of S?o Paulo, Brazil) for retrieving selected full-text articles; Talita Monsores Paix?o (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Brazil) for assisting with the inclusion of references and formatting tables and figures; and Natalie Momen (WHO) for technically editing the manuscript. Elizabeth Masterson (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States of America) assisted with the preparation of the data from the NHIS and NHANES, and Carel TJ Hulshof and Subas Neupane (Tampere University, Finland) assisted with the preparation of the data from the EWCS. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article, and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 World Health Organization
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise. Data sources: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economies in any WHO Member and/or ILO member State, but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise, categorized into two levels: no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85dBA) and any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the RoB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Results: Sixty-five studies (56 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 157,370 participants (15,369 females) across 28 countries and all six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific). For the main analyses, we prioritized the four included studies that surveyed national probability samples of general populations of workers over the 58 studies of workers in industrial sectors and/or occupations with relatively high occupational exposure to noise. The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter, or official or company records; in the population-based studies, it was assessed with validated questions. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise are presented for all 65 included studies, by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector, and occupation where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA) among the general population of workers was 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.19, 4 studies, 108,256 participants, 38 countries, two WHO regions, I2 98%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that pooled prevalence differed substantially by WHO region, sex, industrial sector, and occupation. Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to noise is prevalent among general populations of workers. The current body of evidence is, however, of low quality, due to serious concerns for risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates of occupational exposure to noise nevertheless appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review are suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates (if feasible). Protocol identifier: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272
AB - Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise. Data sources: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economies in any WHO Member and/or ILO member State, but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise, categorized into two levels: no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85dBA) and any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the RoB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Results: Sixty-five studies (56 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 157,370 participants (15,369 females) across 28 countries and all six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific). For the main analyses, we prioritized the four included studies that surveyed national probability samples of general populations of workers over the 58 studies of workers in industrial sectors and/or occupations with relatively high occupational exposure to noise. The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter, or official or company records; in the population-based studies, it was assessed with validated questions. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise are presented for all 65 included studies, by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector, and occupation where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA) among the general population of workers was 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.19, 4 studies, 108,256 participants, 38 countries, two WHO regions, I2 98%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that pooled prevalence differed substantially by WHO region, sex, industrial sector, and occupation. Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to noise is prevalent among general populations of workers. The current body of evidence is, however, of low quality, due to serious concerns for risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates of occupational exposure to noise nevertheless appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review are suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates (if feasible). Protocol identifier: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272
KW - Global burden of disease
KW - Noise
KW - Occupational risk factor
KW - Prevalence
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100417774&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106380
DO - 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106380
M3 - Article
C2 - 33875242
AN - SCOPUS:85100417774
SN - 0160-4120
VL - 154
JO - Environment International
JF - Environment International
M1 - 106380
ER -
