Longitudinal evaluation of a hearing protector fit training program

Objective:The present study evaluates a training program for fitting different hearing protection devices (HPDs) based on personal attenuation rating (PAR) before, immediately after, and six months after training.Methods:A total of 67 workers from a public university in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, were invited to participate in the measurement of PARs for foam and silicone protectors through the 3M™ E-A-Rfit Validation System. Two evaluations were performed for each protector at each sampling date: one after reading printed material (the package instructions) and another after being trained by an audiologist. The same procedures were repeated after six months. The final sample consisted of 30 individuals. ANOVA was used for statistical analysis.Results:Larger PAR values were observed after training by the audiologist, and smaller values were observed after six months. Then, after re-training, the values increased again. There were no statistically significant differences in PAR among the HPDs tested. Even after the two training sessions, 23 to 27% of the subjects did not obtain adequate PAR values.Conclusion:These findings emphasize the need for continual worker training in the correct fit of earplug HPDs and the importance of longitudinal PAR monitoring. In addition, some workers, despite the training provided, did not adapt to the HPDs used. Therefore, it is essential that other protection methods and/or other HPD types are made available to these individuals.Key words: Hearing, noise-induced hearing loss, occupational health, personal protective equipment, hearing protection devices     

Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening programme for women in rural China

In low and middle-income countries mammographic breast cancer screening is prohibitively expensive and a cheaper alternative option is to use ultrasound as the primary screening test. In 2009, China launched a breast cancer screening programme for rural women aged 35–64 years with clinical breast examination coupled with ultrasound as the primary tool. Our study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of breast screening compared to no screening among Chinese rural women. We developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and effects for rural women aged 35 years from a societal perspective. Asymptomatic women in the intervention arm were screened every 3 years before age 64 years. Breast cancer in the non-screening arm can only be diagnosed on presentation of symptoms. Parameter uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared to no screening, breast cancer screening cost $186.7 more and led to a loss of 0.20 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Breast screening was more expensive and did harm to health among rural women with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $-916/QALY. The sensitivity analysis identified utility loss from false positives as the factor that most influenced the results, but this did not affect the conclusions. In a rural setting with such low breast cancer incidence, screening for asymptomatic disease is not cost-effective with current screening tools. Priority should be given to ensure that symptomatic women have proper access to diagnosis and treatment at an early stage as this will lead to mortality reductions without the usual screening harms.