4.3 Article

Occupational Noise Exposure and Incidence of High Fasting Blood Glucose: A 3-Year, Multicenter, Retrospective Study

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18179388

Keywords

occupational noise; fasting blood glucose; Common Data Model; workers' health examination

Funding

  1. Korea Health Industry Development Institute - Ministry of Health Welfare [HI19C0052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the impact of occupational noise exposure on the development of high fasting blood glucose, finding a significant association between occupational noise exposure and high fasting blood glucose, potentially increasing the risk for prediabetes.
The role of hazardous occupational noise exposure on the development of prediabetes is not well researched. We aimed to elucidate exposure to hazardous occupational noise as an independent risk factor for high fasting blood glucose (FBG). Participants exposed/non-exposed to occupational noise were recruited from the Common Data Model cohorts of 2013/2014 from two centers and were followed-up for 3 years. Multivariate time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were adjusted for various covariates. Pooled HRs were calculated. Among the 43,858 participants of this retrospective cohort study, 37.64% developed high FBG. The mean (standard deviation) age in the cohort was 40.91 (9.71) years. In the fully adjusted models, the HRs of high FBG in the two centers were 1.35 (95% CI: 1.24-1.48) and 1.22 (95% CI: 1.17-1.28), and the pooled HR was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.16-1.41). A Kaplan-Meier plot of high FBG incidence by occupational noise exposure showed significant results (p < 0.001). We found that occupational noise exposure is significantly associated with high FBG. Preventing exposure to hazardous noise in the work environment may help reduce the risk for prediabetes among workers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available