RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar o efeito de intervenções no trabalho sobre a exposição ao ruído ou a perda auditiva em comparação com ausência ou intervenções alternativas. Estratégia de pesquisa Buscas em Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, OSHupdate, Cochrane Central e CINAHL. Critérios de seleção Incluídos ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR), estudos controlados pré/pós-intervenção (ECPPI) e estudos de séries temporais interrompidas (SIT) avaliando controles de engenharia, administrativos, equipamentos de proteção auditiva (EPAs) e vigilância auditiva. Coletados estudos de caso de engenharia. Análise dos dados Cochrane para revisões sistemáticas, incluindo metanálise. Resultados Foram incluídos 29 estudos. Legislação mais rigorosa pode reduzir níveis de ruído em 4,5 dB(A) (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). Controles de engenharia podem reduzir imediatamente o ruído (107 casos). Onze ECR e ECPPI (3.725 participantes) avaliaram EPAs. Treinamento para inserção do EPA reduz a exposição ao ruído no acompanhamento de curto prazo (evidência de qualidade moderada). Protetores tipo concha podem ter desempenho melhor do que protetores de inserção em níveis altos de ruído, mas piores em níveis mais baixos (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). EPAs podem reduzir a perda auditiva no acompanhamento de muito longo prazo (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). Dezessete estudos (84.028 participantes) avaliaram programas de prevenção de perdas auditivas. Um melhor uso do EPA pode reduzir a perda auditiva, mas outros componentes não (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). Conclusão As intervenções para prevenção da perda auditiva reduzem modestamente a exposição ao ruído e a perda auditiva. Estudos de melhor qualidade e melhor implementação de medidas de controle de ruído e EPA são necessários.

ABSTRACT Purpose Assess the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions at work on noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no or alternative interventions. Research strategies Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, OSHupdate, Cochrane Central and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched. Selection criteria Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), Controlled Before-After studies (CBA) and Interrupted Time-Series studies (ITS) evaluating engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance were included. Case studies of engineering controls were collected. Data analysis Cochrane methods for systematic reviews, including meta-analysis, were followed. Results 29 studies were included. Stricter legislation can reduce noise levels by 4.5 dB(A) (very low-quality evidence). Engineering controls can immediately reduce noise (107 cases). Eleven RCTs and CBA studies (3725 participants) were evaluated through Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs). Training of earplug insertion reduces noise exposure at short term follow-up (moderate quality evidence). Earmuffs might perform better than earplugs in high noise levels but worse in low noise levels (very low-quality evidence). HPDs might reduce hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Seventeen studies (84028 participants) evaluated hearing loss prevention programs. Better use of HPDs might reduce hearing loss but other components not (very low-quality evidence). Conclusion Hearing loss prevention and interventions modestly reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. Better quality studies and better implementation of noise control measures and HPDs is needed.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress which may lead to serious mental and physical health problems. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of work and person-directed interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials Specialised Register, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Occupational Health Field database. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For work-directed interventions interrupted time series and prospective cohort were also eligible. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs, three cluster-randomised trials and two crossover trials, including a total of 1,564 participants in intervention groups and 1,248 controls. Two trials were of high quality. Interventions were grouped into 1) person-directed: cognitive-behavioural, relaxation, music-making, therapeutic massage and multicomponent; and 2) work-directed: attitude change and communication, support from colleagues and participatory problem solving and decision-making, and changes in work organisation. There is limited evidence that person-directed interventions can reduce stress (standardised mean difference or SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.21, -0.49); burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (weighted mean difference or WMD -5.82; 95% CI -11.02, -0.63) and lack of Personal Accomplishment (WMD -3.61; 95% CI -4.65, -2.58); and anxiety: state anxiety (WMD -9.42; 95% CI -16.92, -1.93) and trait anxiety (WMD -6.91; 95% CI -12.80, -1.01). One trial showed that stress remained low a month after intervention (WMD -6.10; 95% CI -8.44, -3.76). Another trial showed a reduction in Emotional Exhaustion (Mean Difference or MD -2.69; 95% CI -4.20, -1.17) and in lack of Personal Accomplishment (MD -2.41; 95% CI -3.83, -0.99) maintained up to two years when the intervention was boosted with refresher sessions. Two studies showed a reduction that was maintained up to a month in state anxiety (WMD -8.31; 95% CI -11.49, -5.13) and trait anxiety (WMD -4.09; 95% CI -7.60, -0.58). There is limited evidence that work-directed interventions can reduce stress symptoms (Mean Difference or MD -0.34; 95% CI -0.62, -0.06); Depersonalization (MD -1.14; 95% CI -2.18, -0.10), and general symptoms (MD -2.90; 95% CI -5.16, -0.64). One study showed that the difference in stress symptom level was nonsignificant at six months (MD -0.19; 95% CI -0.49, 0.11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stress levels in healthcare workers. Larger and better quality trials are needed.

BACKGROUND: Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst of work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work. METHODS: Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. Selection criteria: We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while of work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised placebo-controlled trials with 718 participants. Nine trials evaluated the effect of melatonin and two the effect of hypnotics for improving sleep problems. One trial assessed the effect of modafinil, two of armodafinil and one examined cafeine plus naps to decrease sleepiness or to increase alertness.

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Perda auditiva induzida por ruído pode apenas ser prevenida eliminando ou diminuindo os níveis de exposição sonora. Quando a fonte do ruído não pode ser eliminada, trabalhadores devem utilizar os equipamentos de proteção auditiva. O objetivo foi sumarizar as evidências sobre efetividade das intervenções para aumentar o uso de protetores auriculares entre trabalhadores expostos a ruídos. ESTRATÉGIA DE BUSCA: Estudos randomizados foram identificados por busca eletrônica na literatura médica até 2005. Os dados foram checados duplamente e inseridos no software Review Manager software, versão 4.2.5. RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Dois estudos foram encontrados. Uma intervenção padronizada por computador em relação ao risco de um trabalhador individual durou 30 minutos e não foi mais efetiva do que um vídeo fornecendo informações gerais entre os trabalhadores. Um segundo ensaio clínico randomizado avaliou os efeitos de um programa de prevenção auditiva de quatro anos em uma escola onde jovens trabalhavam nas fazendas de seus pais. O grupo de intervenção foi duas vezes mais provável de usar algum tipo de protetor auricular do que o grupo controle, que recebeu mínima intervenção. CONCLUSÃO DOS REVISORES: Limitada evidência não demonstrou quando as intervenções padronizadas são mais ou menos efetivas do que intervenções gerais em trabalhadores, 80% deles já utilizavam o protetor auricular. Intervenções longas em escolas podem aumentar substancialmente o uso de protetores auriculares. Melhores intervenções para aumentar o uso de Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) devem ser desenvolvidas e avaliadas com intuito de aumentar a prevenção de perda auditiva induzida por ruído em trabalhadores.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Noise-induced hearing loss can only be prevented by eliminating or lowering noise exposure levels. When the source of the noise cannot be eliminated, workers have to rely on hearing protection equipment. The aim here was to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the wearing of hearing protection among workers exposed to noise in the workplace. DATA SOURCE: Studies with random assignment were identified by an electronic search of the medical literature up to 2005. Data were double-entered into the Review Manager software, version 4.2.5. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two studies were found. A computer-based intervention tailored to individual workers’ risks and lasting 30 minutes was not found to be more effective than a video providing general information for workers. A second randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of a four-year school-based hearing loss prevention program among schoolchildren working on their parents’ farms. The intervention group was twice as likely to wear some kind of hearing protection as was the control group (which received only minimal intervention). REVIEWERS’ CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence does not show whether tailored interventions are more or less effective than general interventions among workers, 80% of whom already use hearing protection. Long-lasting school-based interventions may increase the use of hearing protection substantially. Better interventions to enhance the use of hearing protection need to be developed and evaluated in order to increase the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss among workers.