MGMIMass Gathering Medicine

← Library

AI-DRAFTED — PHYSICIAN REVIEW IN PROGRESSThe citation for this entry was checked against Crossref and PubMed, but its summary and interpretation were drafted by an AI model from the published abstract and have not yet been individually read by a physician. Read the linked source before relying on this operationally.
Paper ✓ verified

Safe Sound: Highlighting Electronic Dance Music Attendees' Unique Hearing Protection Practices[1]

Ayo-Ajibola O, Jung T, Lin ME, Long R, Parsons J, Choi JS, Doherty J · 2025 · Laryngoscope

Summary

Survey of 2,022 attendees (1,049 EDM vs 1,153 non-EDM) with propensity-score matching. EDM attendees went to more events, for longer, and reported more post-event tinnitus and trouble hearing — yet after matching they used hearing protection more (70.5% vs 59.4%), more consistently (48.5% vs 29.6% "often/always"), and preferred high-fidelity earplugs far more (64.5% vs 31.5%). EDM attendees showed greater concern about hearing damage and belief in protection efficacy; non-EDM attendees more often saw protection as unnecessary or as harming music quality. EDM attendees more often adopted their protection via social media or peer referral. Adjusted odds of protection use (OR 1.96) and HFE use (OR 2.98) were higher for EDM attendees.

So what

The behavior-change companion to the HFE-benefits entry: the highest-exposure crowd (EDM) has, through community norms and peer/social-media referral, built the healthiest protection culture in live music — which is both the model and the delivery channel for reaching everyone else. For event planners and public-health messaging it says hearing protection uptake is a SOCIAL intervention (normalize it, distribute HFEs, address the music-quality objection) more than a signage one. Pairs with the genre-prediction and toxicology pages as the EDM-attendee behavioral cluster; free PMC full text.

Key findings

  • 2,022 attendees, EDM vs non-EDM, propensity-matched
  • EDM attendees higher/more consistent protection use despite more exposure (70.5% vs 59.4%)
  • Strong EDM preference for high-fidelity earplugs (64.5% vs 31.5%)
  • Adoption driven by community norms + social-media/peer referral
  • Non-EDM barrier: protection seen as unnecessary or music-quality-harming; free PMC

Read the paper