Volume 21, Issue 4 (1-2026)
J Health Syst Res 2026, 21(4): 516-524 |
Back to browse issues page
Research code: ۴۰۱۰۰۰۴۴۰
Ethics code: IR.KMU.REC.1401.275
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Behzadnia F, Ghotbi-Ravandi M, Zare S, Tayebiyan A, Mohammadi M, Nazemi A. Prioritization and Weighting of Factors Affecting the Performance of the Hearing Protection Program with the Analytical Hierarchy Method in a Mining-Industrial Company. J Health Syst Res 2026; 21 (4) :516-524
URL: http://hsr.mui.ac.ir/article-1-1785-en.html
URL: http://hsr.mui.ac.ir/article-1-1785-en.html
Farzaneh Behzadnia1 
, Mohammadreza Ghotbi-Ravandi2 , Sajad Zare2 , Aida Tayebiyan3 , Moslem Mohammadi4 , Abbas Nazemi5
, Mohammadreza Ghotbi-Ravandi2 , Sajad Zare2 , Aida Tayebiyan3 , Moslem Mohammadi4 , Abbas Nazemi5
1- Student Research Committee, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Safety, Health, and Environmental Engineering, Kerman Institute of Higher Education, Kerman, Iran
4- PhD Candidate, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Medicine, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
5- Department of Safety, Health and Environmental Engineering, Kerman Institute of Higher Education, Kerman, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Safety, Health, and Environmental Engineering, Kerman Institute of Higher Education, Kerman, Iran
4- PhD Candidate, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Medicine, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
5- Department of Safety, Health and Environmental Engineering, Kerman Institute of Higher Education, Kerman, Iran
Abstract: (146 Views)
Background: Hearing protection programs are implemented to prevent and mitigate the progression of hearing loss resulting from noise exposure among workers. The benefits of implementing such programs directly contribute to maintaining and enhancing productivity levels, increasing work efficiency, reducing work-related accidents, as well as decreasing stress and fatigue associated with noise exposure. Therefore, this study was designed to prioritize and weigh factors affecting the performance of the hearing protection program using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method in the industry.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical study that was conducted in 2021. It examined 4 criteria, including feasibility, efficiency, cost, and process interference, and 12 options, including environmental noise pressure measurement, sound and iso-acoustic mapping with software, calculation of equivalent sound level based on ISO 9612 standard, assessment of workers' noise health risks, engineering control measures, managerial control measures, personal protective equipment (PPE) control measures, determination of workers' hearing loss through audiometry, determination of changes in standard hearing thresholds, employee training, drafting an industry hearing protection program document, and monitoring the scientific quality of results of employees' hearing loss measurements. Ultimately, the final prioritization and weighting of criteria and options were done by the AHP method and through Expert Choice and Excel software.
Findings: The level of disagreement in all cases was less than 10%, and the compatibility of responses was confirmed. Among the criteria and options, the feasibility criterion with a relative weight of 0.658 had the highest importance, and the process interference criterion with a relative weight of 0.057 had the least importance. Furthermore, among the options, the option of measuring environmental noise pressure level with a final weight of 0.189 had the highest priority, and the option of sound and iso-acoustic mapping with software ranked second. The option of assessing workers' noise health risks also obtained the third rank. Monitoring the scientific quality of results of employees' hearing loss measurements with a final weight of 0.017 was the least suitable option.
Conclusion: The applicability of the evaluation tool and the measurement of the environmental sound pressure level have a high priority in the evaluation of the hearing protection program. Moreover, this is a suitable tool for evaluating the performance of the hearing protection program in the industry.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical study that was conducted in 2021. It examined 4 criteria, including feasibility, efficiency, cost, and process interference, and 12 options, including environmental noise pressure measurement, sound and iso-acoustic mapping with software, calculation of equivalent sound level based on ISO 9612 standard, assessment of workers' noise health risks, engineering control measures, managerial control measures, personal protective equipment (PPE) control measures, determination of workers' hearing loss through audiometry, determination of changes in standard hearing thresholds, employee training, drafting an industry hearing protection program document, and monitoring the scientific quality of results of employees' hearing loss measurements. Ultimately, the final prioritization and weighting of criteria and options were done by the AHP method and through Expert Choice and Excel software.
Findings: The level of disagreement in all cases was less than 10%, and the compatibility of responses was confirmed. Among the criteria and options, the feasibility criterion with a relative weight of 0.658 had the highest importance, and the process interference criterion with a relative weight of 0.057 had the least importance. Furthermore, among the options, the option of measuring environmental noise pressure level with a final weight of 0.189 had the highest priority, and the option of sound and iso-acoustic mapping with software ranked second. The option of assessing workers' noise health risks also obtained the third rank. Monitoring the scientific quality of results of employees' hearing loss measurements with a final weight of 0.017 was the least suitable option.
Conclusion: The applicability of the evaluation tool and the measurement of the environmental sound pressure level have a high priority in the evaluation of the hearing protection program. Moreover, this is a suitable tool for evaluating the performance of the hearing protection program in the industry.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Occupational health engineering and occupational safety
Received: 2024/04/10 | Accepted: 2024/11/2 | Published: 2026/01/5
Received: 2024/04/10 | Accepted: 2024/11/2 | Published: 2026/01/5
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
