Seafarers inhabit acoustically hostile environments continuously across deployment rotations of four to six months, yet how shipboard noise relates to operational-safety risk is poorly characterised. We surveyed 242 maritime cadets with sea-service experience at Korea Maritime and Ocean University and applied factor analysis, structural regression and mediation modelling to the resulting cross-sectional, self-reported data. A two-factor model—Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance and Fatigue (F1; α = 0.929) and Noise-Related Communication and Safety Impairment (F2; α = 0.871)—was retained over competing specifications on parsimony and interpretability grounds, with high reliability and supported discriminant validity (φ = 0.667), although absolute fit was modest (CFI = 0.865, RMSEA = 0.106) and the model awaits independent replication. F1 was strongly associated with F2 (β = 0.592, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.349), independent of academic department. An exploratory mediation analysis indicated that sleep disturbance and fatigue statistically accounted for 58% of the association between perceived noise burden and perceived safety impairment (indirect = 0.321, 95% CI [0.16, 0.49]), and 34% of cadets self-reported a noise-related near-miss. Across all shipboard spaces, cadets favouring stricter, WHO-aligned noise limits outnumbered those satisfied with current IMO ceilings by about 2.5 to 1. These cross-sectional findings are consistent with—but cannot causally demonstrate—a sleep–fatigue pathway linking shipboard noise to operational safety, and they offer stakeholder-derived input for future discussions of IMO Resolution MSC.337(91).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: