Sources of discrepancies between a job exposure matrix and a case by case expert assessment for occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood-dust

Daniele Luce, Michel Geriim, Franco Berrino, Paola Pisani, Annette Leclerc

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Two methods used for retrospective evaluation of occupational exposures, a case by case assessment by expert and the application of a job exposure matrix (JEM), are compared using occupational histories collected for a case-control study on sinonasal cancer. The objective was to identify the main sources of discrepancies and to contribute to an optimal use of a JEM for population-based case-control studies. Comparisons were based on job periods, and were performed separately for two substances: formaldehyde and wood-dust. Job periods were classified according to the category of exposure assigned by the matrix, and to the probability and level of exposure assessed by the study expert. The sources of discrepancies were examined for job periods probably or definitely exposed according to the JEM and unexposed for the expert, or unexposed in the JEM and probably or definitely exposed to medium or high level for the expert. Such discrepancies were observed for 8% of the job periods for formaldehyde and 3% of the job periods for wood-dust. The agreement between the two approaches was better for wood-dust than for formaldehyde. The relative importance of different sources of discrepancies was not the same for formaldehyde and wood-dust. For formaldehyde a substantial part of the discrepancies was due to disagreements between the study expert and the matrix experts, which were mostly differences in threshold limits between 'not exposed' and 'definitely exposed at a low level'. Differences between experts' opinions did not explain the discordances observed for wood-dust. The presence of additional information in the questionnaire was an important source of discrepancy for the two substances. However in situations where additional information from the questionnaire is important, the fact that the matrix is insufficient or inadequate can often be foreseen: time-dependent exposure in the matrix, complex job with multiple activities difficult to code, additional part-time job, and a limited list of occupations. With a semi-structured questionnaire, the two methods could be used in a complementary way, with an evaluation by experts from the questionnaire limited to these situations, and with a direct application of the matrix for the other jobs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)S113-S120
JournalInternational Journal of Epidemiology
Volume22
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Occupational Exposure
Dust
Formaldehyde
Case-Control Studies
Job Application
Expert Testimony
Occupations
Surveys and Questionnaires
Population
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Sources of discrepancies between a job exposure matrix and a case by case expert assessment for occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood-dust. / Luce, Daniele; Geriim, Michel; Berrino, Franco; Pisani, Paola; Leclerc, Annette.

In: International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 22, 1993, p. S113-S120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Luce, Daniele ; Geriim, Michel ; Berrino, Franco ; Pisani, Paola ; Leclerc, Annette. / Sources of discrepancies between a job exposure matrix and a case by case expert assessment for occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood-dust. In: International Journal of Epidemiology. 1993 ; Vol. 22. pp. S113-S120.
@article{a5faea4d537d47ebb7328c9af7217822,
title = "Sources of discrepancies between a job exposure matrix and a case by case expert assessment for occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood-dust",
abstract = "Two methods used for retrospective evaluation of occupational exposures, a case by case assessment by expert and the application of a job exposure matrix (JEM), are compared using occupational histories collected for a case-control study on sinonasal cancer. The objective was to identify the main sources of discrepancies and to contribute to an optimal use of a JEM for population-based case-control studies. Comparisons were based on job periods, and were performed separately for two substances: formaldehyde and wood-dust. Job periods were classified according to the category of exposure assigned by the matrix, and to the probability and level of exposure assessed by the study expert. The sources of discrepancies were examined for job periods probably or definitely exposed according to the JEM and unexposed for the expert, or unexposed in the JEM and probably or definitely exposed to medium or high level for the expert. Such discrepancies were observed for 8{\%} of the job periods for formaldehyde and 3{\%} of the job periods for wood-dust. The agreement between the two approaches was better for wood-dust than for formaldehyde. The relative importance of different sources of discrepancies was not the same for formaldehyde and wood-dust. For formaldehyde a substantial part of the discrepancies was due to disagreements between the study expert and the matrix experts, which were mostly differences in threshold limits between 'not exposed' and 'definitely exposed at a low level'. Differences between experts' opinions did not explain the discordances observed for wood-dust. The presence of additional information in the questionnaire was an important source of discrepancy for the two substances. However in situations where additional information from the questionnaire is important, the fact that the matrix is insufficient or inadequate can often be foreseen: time-dependent exposure in the matrix, complex job with multiple activities difficult to code, additional part-time job, and a limited list of occupations. With a semi-structured questionnaire, the two methods could be used in a complementary way, with an evaluation by experts from the questionnaire limited to these situations, and with a direct application of the matrix for the other jobs.",
author = "Daniele Luce and Michel Geriim and Franco Berrino and Paola Pisani and Annette Leclerc",
year = "1993",
doi = "10.1093/ije/22.Supplement_2.S113",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "S113--S120",
journal = "International Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0300-5771",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sources of discrepancies between a job exposure matrix and a case by case expert assessment for occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood-dust

AU - Luce, Daniele

AU - Geriim, Michel

AU - Berrino, Franco

AU - Pisani, Paola

AU - Leclerc, Annette

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - Two methods used for retrospective evaluation of occupational exposures, a case by case assessment by expert and the application of a job exposure matrix (JEM), are compared using occupational histories collected for a case-control study on sinonasal cancer. The objective was to identify the main sources of discrepancies and to contribute to an optimal use of a JEM for population-based case-control studies. Comparisons were based on job periods, and were performed separately for two substances: formaldehyde and wood-dust. Job periods were classified according to the category of exposure assigned by the matrix, and to the probability and level of exposure assessed by the study expert. The sources of discrepancies were examined for job periods probably or definitely exposed according to the JEM and unexposed for the expert, or unexposed in the JEM and probably or definitely exposed to medium or high level for the expert. Such discrepancies were observed for 8% of the job periods for formaldehyde and 3% of the job periods for wood-dust. The agreement between the two approaches was better for wood-dust than for formaldehyde. The relative importance of different sources of discrepancies was not the same for formaldehyde and wood-dust. For formaldehyde a substantial part of the discrepancies was due to disagreements between the study expert and the matrix experts, which were mostly differences in threshold limits between 'not exposed' and 'definitely exposed at a low level'. Differences between experts' opinions did not explain the discordances observed for wood-dust. The presence of additional information in the questionnaire was an important source of discrepancy for the two substances. However in situations where additional information from the questionnaire is important, the fact that the matrix is insufficient or inadequate can often be foreseen: time-dependent exposure in the matrix, complex job with multiple activities difficult to code, additional part-time job, and a limited list of occupations. With a semi-structured questionnaire, the two methods could be used in a complementary way, with an evaluation by experts from the questionnaire limited to these situations, and with a direct application of the matrix for the other jobs.

AB - Two methods used for retrospective evaluation of occupational exposures, a case by case assessment by expert and the application of a job exposure matrix (JEM), are compared using occupational histories collected for a case-control study on sinonasal cancer. The objective was to identify the main sources of discrepancies and to contribute to an optimal use of a JEM for population-based case-control studies. Comparisons were based on job periods, and were performed separately for two substances: formaldehyde and wood-dust. Job periods were classified according to the category of exposure assigned by the matrix, and to the probability and level of exposure assessed by the study expert. The sources of discrepancies were examined for job periods probably or definitely exposed according to the JEM and unexposed for the expert, or unexposed in the JEM and probably or definitely exposed to medium or high level for the expert. Such discrepancies were observed for 8% of the job periods for formaldehyde and 3% of the job periods for wood-dust. The agreement between the two approaches was better for wood-dust than for formaldehyde. The relative importance of different sources of discrepancies was not the same for formaldehyde and wood-dust. For formaldehyde a substantial part of the discrepancies was due to disagreements between the study expert and the matrix experts, which were mostly differences in threshold limits between 'not exposed' and 'definitely exposed at a low level'. Differences between experts' opinions did not explain the discordances observed for wood-dust. The presence of additional information in the questionnaire was an important source of discrepancy for the two substances. However in situations where additional information from the questionnaire is important, the fact that the matrix is insufficient or inadequate can often be foreseen: time-dependent exposure in the matrix, complex job with multiple activities difficult to code, additional part-time job, and a limited list of occupations. With a semi-structured questionnaire, the two methods could be used in a complementary way, with an evaluation by experts from the questionnaire limited to these situations, and with a direct application of the matrix for the other jobs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027732493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027732493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ije/22.Supplement_2.S113

DO - 10.1093/ije/22.Supplement_2.S113

M3 - Article

C2 - 8132384

AN - SCOPUS:0027732493

VL - 22

SP - S113-S120

JO - International Journal of Epidemiology

JF - International Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0300-5771

ER -