Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure-II. At the job level: Complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices

Ewa Orlowski, Hermann Pohlabeln, Franco Berrino, Wolfgang Ahrens, Ulrich Bolm-Audorff, Karlheinz Grossgarten, Yuriko Iwatsubo, Karl Heinz Jockel, Patrick Brochard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The assessments of asbestos exposure by two a priori job exposure matrices (JEM) and by a job-specific questionnaire (SQ) are compared at job level. The data used for the comparison were generated by an ongoing case-control study on lung cancer in a region of northern Germany with a relatively high past prevalence of asbestos exposure. Among job periods assessed as unexposed by either JEM, 96% are recognized as such by the SQ. Discrepancies between the SQ and JEM were observed in jobs rated potentially exposed by the JEM. Despite varying estimates, the JEM and SQ were consistent as regards the relative classification of job periods by probability of exposure. The concordance of the methods, estimated by Kappa statistics, was stronger for the two JEM than for either of the JEM and the SQ. The identification of specific occupation/industry combinations in which discrepancies were most frequent and the comparison with expert ratings in some jobs yield insights into the sources of the disagreement between the methods. The misclassification of exposure by the JEM usually results in an overestimation of exposure. This is essentially related to loss of information due to the use of job codes as surrogates for job task descriptions and to the insufficiency of published data on asbestos exposure in different industries. As regards the SQ, two main sources of potential loss of sensitivity were identified: 1) possible omission of indirect sources of exposure by this method, 2) possible incompleteness of the SQ. The present comparison of methods of asbestos exposure assessment does not allow any one approach to be considered superior to another. Indeed, as proposed by Ahrens et at. in Part I of the study, both should be used to ensure optimal epidemiological performance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)S96-S105
JournalInternational Journal of Epidemiology
Volume22
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Asbestos
Industry
Job Description
Surveys and Questionnaires
Occupations
Germany
Case-Control Studies
Lung Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure-II. At the job level : Complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices. / Orlowski, Ewa; Pohlabeln, Hermann; Berrino, Franco; Ahrens, Wolfgang; Bolm-Audorff, Ulrich; Grossgarten, Karlheinz; Iwatsubo, Yuriko; Jockel, Karl Heinz; Brochard, Patrick.

In: International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 22, 1993, p. S96-S105.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Orlowski, E, Pohlabeln, H, Berrino, F, Ahrens, W, Bolm-Audorff, U, Grossgarten, K, Iwatsubo, Y, Jockel, KH & Brochard, P 1993, 'Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure-II. At the job level: Complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices', International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 22, pp. S96-S105. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/22.Supplement_2.S96
Orlowski, Ewa ; Pohlabeln, Hermann ; Berrino, Franco ; Ahrens, Wolfgang ; Bolm-Audorff, Ulrich ; Grossgarten, Karlheinz ; Iwatsubo, Yuriko ; Jockel, Karl Heinz ; Brochard, Patrick. / Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure-II. At the job level : Complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices. In: International Journal of Epidemiology. 1993 ; Vol. 22. pp. S96-S105.
@article{2caa0b4fd2694c669da4b62563650c64,
title = "Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure-II. At the job level: Complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices",
abstract = "The assessments of asbestos exposure by two a priori job exposure matrices (JEM) and by a job-specific questionnaire (SQ) are compared at job level. The data used for the comparison were generated by an ongoing case-control study on lung cancer in a region of northern Germany with a relatively high past prevalence of asbestos exposure. Among job periods assessed as unexposed by either JEM, 96{\%} are recognized as such by the SQ. Discrepancies between the SQ and JEM were observed in jobs rated potentially exposed by the JEM. Despite varying estimates, the JEM and SQ were consistent as regards the relative classification of job periods by probability of exposure. The concordance of the methods, estimated by Kappa statistics, was stronger for the two JEM than for either of the JEM and the SQ. The identification of specific occupation/industry combinations in which discrepancies were most frequent and the comparison with expert ratings in some jobs yield insights into the sources of the disagreement between the methods. The misclassification of exposure by the JEM usually results in an overestimation of exposure. This is essentially related to loss of information due to the use of job codes as surrogates for job task descriptions and to the insufficiency of published data on asbestos exposure in different industries. As regards the SQ, two main sources of potential loss of sensitivity were identified: 1) possible omission of indirect sources of exposure by this method, 2) possible incompleteness of the SQ. The present comparison of methods of asbestos exposure assessment does not allow any one approach to be considered superior to another. Indeed, as proposed by Ahrens et at. in Part I of the study, both should be used to ensure optimal epidemiological performance.",
author = "Ewa Orlowski and Hermann Pohlabeln and Franco Berrino and Wolfgang Ahrens and Ulrich Bolm-Audorff and Karlheinz Grossgarten and Yuriko Iwatsubo and Jockel, {Karl Heinz} and Patrick Brochard",
year = "1993",
doi = "10.1093/ije/22.Supplement_2.S96",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "S96--S105",
journal = "International Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0300-5771",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure-II. At the job level

T2 - Complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices

AU - Orlowski, Ewa

AU - Pohlabeln, Hermann

AU - Berrino, Franco

AU - Ahrens, Wolfgang

AU - Bolm-Audorff, Ulrich

AU - Grossgarten, Karlheinz

AU - Iwatsubo, Yuriko

AU - Jockel, Karl Heinz

AU - Brochard, Patrick

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - The assessments of asbestos exposure by two a priori job exposure matrices (JEM) and by a job-specific questionnaire (SQ) are compared at job level. The data used for the comparison were generated by an ongoing case-control study on lung cancer in a region of northern Germany with a relatively high past prevalence of asbestos exposure. Among job periods assessed as unexposed by either JEM, 96% are recognized as such by the SQ. Discrepancies between the SQ and JEM were observed in jobs rated potentially exposed by the JEM. Despite varying estimates, the JEM and SQ were consistent as regards the relative classification of job periods by probability of exposure. The concordance of the methods, estimated by Kappa statistics, was stronger for the two JEM than for either of the JEM and the SQ. The identification of specific occupation/industry combinations in which discrepancies were most frequent and the comparison with expert ratings in some jobs yield insights into the sources of the disagreement between the methods. The misclassification of exposure by the JEM usually results in an overestimation of exposure. This is essentially related to loss of information due to the use of job codes as surrogates for job task descriptions and to the insufficiency of published data on asbestos exposure in different industries. As regards the SQ, two main sources of potential loss of sensitivity were identified: 1) possible omission of indirect sources of exposure by this method, 2) possible incompleteness of the SQ. The present comparison of methods of asbestos exposure assessment does not allow any one approach to be considered superior to another. Indeed, as proposed by Ahrens et at. in Part I of the study, both should be used to ensure optimal epidemiological performance.

AB - The assessments of asbestos exposure by two a priori job exposure matrices (JEM) and by a job-specific questionnaire (SQ) are compared at job level. The data used for the comparison were generated by an ongoing case-control study on lung cancer in a region of northern Germany with a relatively high past prevalence of asbestos exposure. Among job periods assessed as unexposed by either JEM, 96% are recognized as such by the SQ. Discrepancies between the SQ and JEM were observed in jobs rated potentially exposed by the JEM. Despite varying estimates, the JEM and SQ were consistent as regards the relative classification of job periods by probability of exposure. The concordance of the methods, estimated by Kappa statistics, was stronger for the two JEM than for either of the JEM and the SQ. The identification of specific occupation/industry combinations in which discrepancies were most frequent and the comparison with expert ratings in some jobs yield insights into the sources of the disagreement between the methods. The misclassification of exposure by the JEM usually results in an overestimation of exposure. This is essentially related to loss of information due to the use of job codes as surrogates for job task descriptions and to the insufficiency of published data on asbestos exposure in different industries. As regards the SQ, two main sources of potential loss of sensitivity were identified: 1) possible omission of indirect sources of exposure by this method, 2) possible incompleteness of the SQ. The present comparison of methods of asbestos exposure assessment does not allow any one approach to be considered superior to another. Indeed, as proposed by Ahrens et at. in Part I of the study, both should be used to ensure optimal epidemiological performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027738782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027738782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ije/22.Supplement_2.S96

DO - 10.1093/ije/22.Supplement_2.S96

M3 - Article

C2 - 8132399

AN - SCOPUS:0027738782

VL - 22

SP - S96-S105

JO - International Journal of Epidemiology

JF - International Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0300-5771

ER -