English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the benefits of early identification of work-related noise-induced hearing loss outweigh the costs of complying with a Global Noise Medical Surveillance Procedure of a large corporation. Hearing is fundamental to language, communication, and socialization. Its loss is a common cause of disability, affecting an estimated 20 to 40 million individuals in the United States (Daniell et al., 1998). NIOSH reported that approximately 30 million U.S. workers are exposed to noise on the job and that noise-induced hearing loss is one of the most common occupational diseases. It is irreversible (NIOSH, 2004). The average cost of a noise-induced hearing loss is reported to range from dollars 4,726 to dollars 25,500. Corporate history indicates a range of dollars 44 to dollars 20,157 per case. During this 4-year study in one plant, the average annual cost of complying with the Global Noise Medical Surveillance Procedure was dollars 19,509 to screen an average of 390 employees, or dollars 50 per worker. The study identified 11 non-work-related standard threshold shifts. All cases were referred for appropriate early intervention. Given the results, this hearing health program is considered beneficial to the corporation for both work- and non-work-related reasons.

Complying with a Corporate Global Noise Health Surveillance Procedure—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?