Abstract
Data from a general population cohort of 878 men from the town of Zutphen. The Netherlands, were used to evaluate the performance of two general job- exposure matrices. Exposures generated by the job-exposure matrices on the basis of job histories were compared. The validity of those exposures was measured against exposures reported by the participants in 1977/1978. The performance of the different exposure measures was assessed in proportional hazards analyses of lung cancer morbidity incidence. The two general job- exposure matrices generally disagreed with regard to exposure classification because of differences in exposure assessment and level of detail of the job axis. When compared with self-reported exposures, the sensitivity of both job-exposure matrices was low (on average, below 0.51), while the specificity was generally high (on average, above 0.90). Self-reported exposures to asbestos, pesticides, and welding fumes showed elevated risk ratios for lung cancer which were absent for exposures generated by the two job-exposure matrices. Thus, a population-specific job-exposure matrix is proposed as an alternative to general job-exposure matrices developed elsewhere. Such a matrix can be constructed from the results of in-depth interviews of a job- stratified sample of cohort members. Sound validation and documentation of exposure assessment methods used in job-exposure matrices are recommended.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 698-711 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | American Journal of Epidemiology |
Volume | 136 |
Issue number | 6 |
Publication status | Published - 22 Jan 1992 |
Keywords
- bias (epidemiology)
- epidemiologic methods
- occupational exposure
- reproducibility of results
- article
- cancer incidence
- health status
- human
- lung cancer
- major clinical study
- male
- medical examination
- morbidity
- Netherlands
- occupational hazard
- prevalence
- priority journal
- questionnaire
- reliability
- reproducibility
- risk assessment
- self report