Encouraging Hearing Loss Prevention in Music Listeners Using Personalized Technology: Questionnaire Study

BACKGROUND: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) affects millions of people despite being almost completely preventable. For recreational music listening through personal listening equipment (such as earbuds), it seems that listeners do not yet have a way to accurately assess their risk of developing hearing loss and prevent it accordingly. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the perceived utility of a hypothetical device that encourages NIHL prevention based on listeners’ exposure to noise and to determine the most effective methods of such encouragement. Here, we describe 3 different potential NIHL risk notification method types, as follows: auditory, external visual, and visual. METHODS: An open, web-based survey was created on Google Forms, and the link was posted to Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as well as music-related Reddit communities. The survey was designed to gauge each respondent’s self-assessed NIHL awareness, willingness to lower their audio if reminded, and NIHL risk notification type preference. The likelihood of a specific notification type to encourage NIHL prevention among its users was based on the average of each user’s responses to 2 survey questions. Data collection started on July 13, 2020, and ended on July 17, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 116 respondents, 92 (79.3%) reported having prior awareness about NIHL; however, 60 (51.7%) described doing nothing to prevent it despite 96 (82.8%) feeling a moderate, high, or extreme risk of developing NIHL. Of those who already prevented NIHL, 96% (53.5/56) described using estimates to guide their prevention instead of using data. A Kruskal-Wallis test corrected for ties showed that despite the visual NIHL risk notification type being selected by the highest number of participants (84/116, 72.4%), the auditory type had a significantly higher (H(1)=6.848; P=.03) average percentage likelihood of encouraging NIHL prevention (62%, SD 24%) among the 40 respondents who chose it, with a median likelihood of 56% (95% CI 50%-75%). The visual type’s average likelihood was 50% (SD 28.1%), with a median of 50% (95% CI 37.5%-56.3%). Regardless of the NIHL risk notification type, 69% (80/116) of respondents were not opposed to using NIHL risk notifications and lowering their audio volume accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothetical device detailed here was thought to be useful because most respondents (82.8%, 96/116) felt an extreme to moderate risk of developing NIHL and such a device could provide accurate data to those who currently use estimates to prevent NIHL, and most respondents were willing to act on NIHL risk notifications. The most effective NIHL risk notification type seemed to be the auditory type, but many aspects of this study need further research to determine which implementation method should reach the public.