The prevalent use of synthetic chemical rodenticides (both 1st or 2nd generation anticoagulants and acute rodenticides) is the primary method for managing rodents in sub-Saharan Africa. However, this practice poses substantial health and environmental risks and often fails to yield significant, sustainable reductions in rodent pest populations. In this paper, the second one of a two-part series, we advocate for a more responsible and sustainable approach to rodent management in urban and agricultural settings in sub-Saharan Africa. We propose a shift towards environmentally friendly rodent management strategies, specifically emphasizing the adoption of Ecologically-Based Rodent Management (EBRM) as a viable alternative to synthetic chemical rodenticides. EBRM relies on a comprehensive understanding of pest rodent biology, ecology, and behavior, along with the implementation of a range of community-based interventions. These actions are designed to ensure the consistent reduction of rodent pest populations to economically and hygienically acceptable levels. By embracing EBRM, we not only anticipate a reduction in the social impacts of pest rodents in a cost-effective manner but also a significant decrease in the risks posed by rodents and synthetic chemical rodenticides to human health and the environment. This paradigm shift towards EBRM promises a more sustainable and responsible approach to rodent management in sub-Saharan Africa.

Objective: This study assessed hearing aid benefits for people with a normal audiogram but hearing-in-noise problems in everyday listening situations. Design: Exploratory double-blinded case control study whereby participants completed retrospective questionnaires, ecological momentary assessments, speech-in-noise testing, and mental effort testing with and without hearing aids. Twenty-seven adults reporting speech-in-noise problems but normal air-conduction pure-tone audiometry took part in the study. They were randomly separated into an experimental group who trialled mild-gain hearing aids with advanced directional processing and a control group fitted with hearing aids with no gain or directionality. Results: Self-reports showed mild-gain hearing aids reduce hearing-in-noise difficulties and provide a better hearing experience (i.e., improved understanding, participation, and mood). Despite the self-reported benefits, the laboratory tests did not reveal a benefit from the mild-gain hearing aids, with no group differences on speech-in-noise tests or mental effort measures. Further, participants found the elevated cost of hearing aids to be a barrier for their adoption. Conclusions: Hearing aids benefit the listening experience in some listening situations for people with normal audiogram who report hearing difficulties in noise. Decreasing the price of hearing aids may lead to greater accessibility to those seeking remediation for their communication needs.