Dataset Information

Agreement between an expert-rated mini job exposure matrix of occupational biomechanical exposures to the lower body and technical measurements or observation: a method comparison study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Investigating the agreement between an expert-rated mini job exposure matrix (JEM) of lower body exposures and technical measurements of worktime spent standing/walking and observation-based estimates of time spent kneeling/squatting and total load lifted per workday.

Methods

We chose 16 job titles from the 121 job groups in the lower body JEM and included them in the mini JEM. New expert ratings for the mini JEM were performed by the same five occupational physicians who performed the ratings for the lower body JEM. For each job title and type of exposure, the exposure estimates were a mean of the five independent ratings. Technical measurements of standing/walking for all 16 job titles, and for 8 job titles workplace observations were performed of kneeling/squatting and total load lifted per workday. Data were collected from September to December 2015 and supplemented by data from the NOMAD and DPhacto studies collected between 2011 and 2013. All data were collected in Denmark. Agreement between expert-based and measured/observed lower body exposures by job titles was evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation, Bland-Altman plots evaluated systematic deviations and limits of agreement (LoA).

Results

Standing/walking showed a rank correlation of 0.55, kneeling/squatting 0.83 and total load lifted per workday 0.71. The mini JEM estimates did not systematically deviate from the technical measurements/observations for time spent standing/walking (mean difference 0.20 hours/workday, LoA -1.63, 2.03 hours/workday) and kneeling/squatting (mean difference -0.35 hours/workday, LoA -1.21, 0.51 hours/workday). For total load lifted per workday, the mini JEM systematically overestimated the exposures compared with the observations (mean difference -909 kg/workday, LoA -3000, 1147 kg/workday).

Conclusions

There was moderate to very high agreement between an expert-rated mini JEM of standing/walking, kneeling/squatting, and lifting exposures and corresponding technical measurements/observations. This method comparison study supports the use of the expert-based lower body JEM in large-scale occupational epidemiological studies.

SUBMITTER: Korshoj M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9723893 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agreement between an expert-rated mini job exposure matrix of occupational biomechanical exposures to the lower body and technical measurements or observation: a method comparison study.

Korshøj Mette M Svendsen Susanne Wulff SW Hendriksen Peter Fjeldstad PF Gupta Nidhi N Holtermann Andreas A Andersen Johan Hviid JH Dalbøge Annett A Frost Poul P

BMJ open 20221205 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>Investigating the agreement between an expert-rated mini job exposure matrix (JEM) of lower body exposures and technical measurements of worktime spent standing/walking and observation-based estimates of time spent kneeling/squatting and total load lifted per workday.<h4>Methods</h4>We chose 16 job titles from the 121 job groups in the lower body JEM and included them in the mini JEM. New expert ratings for the mini JEM were performed by the same five occupational physicians w ...[more]

PMID: 36576183

Similar Datasets

Project description:Researchers and journalists have argued that work-related factors may be partly responsible for disproportionate COVID-19 infection and death rates among vulnerable groups. We evaluate these issues by describing racial and ethnic differences in the likelihood of work-related exposure to COVID-19. We extend previous studies by considering 12 racial and ethnic groups and five types of potential occupational exposure to the virus: exposure to infection, physical proximity to others, face-to-face discussions, interactions with external customers and the public, and working indoors. Most importantly, we stratify our results by occupational standing, defined as the proportion of workers within each occupation with at least some college education. This measure serves as a proxy for whether workplaces and workers employ COVID-19-related risk reduction strategies. We use the 2018 American Community Survey to identify recent workers by occupation, and link 409 occupations to information on work context from the Occupational Information Network to identify potential COVID-related risk factors. We then examine the racial/ethnic distribution of all frontline workers and frontline workers at highest potential risk of COVID-19, by occupational standing and by sex. The results indicate that, contrary to expectation, White frontline workers are often overrepresented in high-risk jobs while Black and Latino frontline workers are generally underrepresented in these jobs. However, disaggregation of the results by occupational standing shows that, in contrast to Whites and several Asian groups, Latino and Black frontline workers are overrepresented in lower standing occupations overall and in lower standing occupations associated with high risk, and thus may be less likely to have adequate COVID-19 protections. Our findings suggest that greater work exposures likely contribute to a higher prevalence of COVID-19 among Latino and Black adults and underscore the need for measures to reduce potential exposure for workers in low standing occupations and for the development of programs outside the workplace.

Project description:Researchers and journalists have argued that work-related factors may be partly responsible for disproportionate COVID-19 infection and death rates among vulnerable groups. We evaluate these claims by examining racial and ethnic differences in the likelihood of work-related exposure to COVID-19. We extend previous studies by considering 12 racial and ethnic groups and five types of potential occupational exposure to the virus: exposure to infection, physical proximity to others, face-to-face discussions, interactions with external customers and the public, and working indoors. Most importantly, we stratify our results by occupational standing, defined as the proportion of workers within each occupation with at least some college education. This measure serves as a proxy for whether workplaces and workers employ significant COVID-19-related risk reduction strategies. We use the 2018 American Community Survey to identify recent workers by occupation, and link 409 occupations to information on work context from the Occupational Information Network to identify potential COVID-related risk factors. We then examine the racial/ethnic distribution of all frontline workers and frontline workers at highest potential risk of COVID-19, by occupational standing and by sex. The results indicate that, contrary to expectation, White frontline workers are often overrepresented in high-risk jobs while Black and Latino frontline workers are generally underrepresented in these jobs. However, disaggregation of the results by occupational standing shows that, in contrast to Whites and several Asian groups, Latino and Black frontline workers are overrepresented in lower status occupations overall and in lower status occupations associated with high risk, and are thus less likely to have adequate COVID-19 protections. Our findings suggest that greater work exposures likely contribute to a higher prevalence of COVID-19 among Latino and Black adults and underscore the need for measures to reduce potential exposure for workers in low status occupations and for the development of programs outside the workplace.

Project description:BackgroundWhile the expert-based occupational exposure assessment approach has been considered the reference method for retrospective population-based studies, its implementation in large study samples has become prohibitive. To facilitate its application and improve upon it we developed, in the context of a Montreal population-based study of prostate cancer (PROtEuS), a hybrid approach combining job-exposure profiles (JEPs) summarizing expert evaluations from previous studies and expert review. We aim to describe the hybrid expert method and its impacts on the exposures assigned in PROtEuS compared to those from a previous study coded using the traditional expert method.MethodsApplying the hybrid approach, experts evaluated semi-quantitative levels of confidence, concentration and frequency of exposure to 313 agents for 16,065 jobs held by 4005 subjects in PROtEuS. These assessments were compared to those from a different set of jobs coded in an earlier study of lung cancer, conducted on the same study base, for 90 blue-collar occupations and 203 agents. Endpoints evaluated included differences in the number of exposures and in the distribution of ratings across jobs, and the within-occupation variability in exposure.ResultsCompared to jobs from the lung cancer study, jobs in PROtEuS had on average 0.3 more exposures. PROtEuS exposures were more often assigned definite confidence ratings, but concentration and frequency levels tended to be lower. The within-occupation variability in ratings assigned to jobs were lower in PROtEuS jobs for all metrics. This was particularly evident for concentration, although considerable variability remained with over 40% of occupation/agent cells in PROtEuS exposed at different levels. The hybrid approach reduced coding time by half, compared to the traditional expert assessment.ConclusionsThe new hybrid expert approach improved on efficiency and transparency, and resulted in greater confidence in assessments, compared to the traditional expert method applied in an earlier study involving a similar set of jobs. Assigned ratings were more homogeneous with the hybrid approach, possibly reflecting clearer guidelines for coding, greater coherence between experts and/or reliance on summaries of past assessments. Nevertheless, significant within-occupation variability remained with the hybrid approach, suggesting that experts took into account job-specific factors in their assessments.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the exposure data generated by using the Canadian job-exposure matrix (CANJEM) with data generated by expert assessment, for jobs held by women.MethodsWe selected 69 occupational agents that had been assessed by experts for each of 3403 jobs held by 998 women in a population-based case-control study of lung cancer. We then assessed the same agents among the same jobs by linking their occupation codes to CANJEM and thereby derived probability of exposure to each of the agents in each job. To create binary exposure variables, we dichotomized probability of exposure using two cutpoints: 25 and 50% (referred to as CANJEM-25% and CANJEM-50%). Using jobs as units of observation, we estimated the prevalence of exposure to each selected agent using CANJEM-25% and CANJEM-50%, and using expert assessment. Further, using expert assessment as the gold standard, for each agent, we estimated CANJEM's sensitivity, specificity, and kappa.ResultsCANJEM-based prevalence estimates correlated well with the prevalences assessed by the experts. When comparing CANJEM-based exposure estimates with expert-based exposure estimates, sensitivity, specificity, and kappa varied greatly among agents, and between CANJEM-25% and CANJEM-50% probability of exposure. With CANJEM-25%, the median sensitivity, specificity, and kappa values were 0.49, 0.99, and 0.46, respectively. Analogously, with CANJEM-50%, the corresponding values were 0.26, 1.00, and 0.35, respectively. For the following agents, we observed high concordance between CANJEM- and expert-based assessments (sensitivity ≥0.70 and specificity ≥0.99): fabric dust, cotton dust, synthetic fibres, cooking fumes, soldering fumes, calcium carbonate, and tin compounds. We present concordance estimates for each of 69 agents.ConclusionsConcordance between CANJEM and expert assessment varied greatly by agents. Our results indicate which agents provide data that mimic best those obtained with expert assessment.

Project description:Background and objectivesMembranous nephropathy is a rare autoimmune kidney disease whose increasing prevalence in industrialized countries pleads for the involvement of an environmental factor in the development of the disease. In addition, the predominance of men in membranous nephropathy, classically attributed to biologic or genetic differences between men and women, could also be due to different occupational exposures. To support this hypothesis, we sought to describe the toxic occupational exposures of patients with membranous nephropathy.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsIn this observational epidemiologic study, we compared the occupations and toxic occupational exposures of 100 patients with membranous nephropathy with those of the general population, consisting of two cohorts of 26,734,000 and 26,500 French workers. We then compared the characteristics of patients exposed to an occupational toxic substance with those of unexposed patients.ResultsPatients with membranous nephropathy worked more frequently in the construction sector than the general population (33% versus 7%, P<0.001). This difference remained significant by age and sex. They were also more frequently exposed to toxic substances, such as asbestos (16% versus 5%, P<0.001), lead (9% versus 1%, P<0.001), or organic solvents (37% versus 15%, P<0.001), than the general population. The predominance of men in the subgroup of patients occupationally exposed to toxic substances was not observed in unexposed individuals (organic solvents: 80% men versus 41%, P<0.001; asbestos: 90% men versus 55%, P=0.004). In addition, patients with phospholipase A2 receptor 1 (PLA2R1) epitope spreading were more frequently exposed to asbestos and organic solvents than patients without epitope spreading (32% versus 7%, P=0.02 and 74% versus 43%, P=0.02, respectively), with a dose-dependent effect.ConclusionsPatients with membranous nephropathy were more frequently exposed to certain occupational toxic substances, such as asbestos and organic solvents, than the general population. This occupational exposure was more frequent in men and in patients with PLA2R1 epitope spreading.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberImmunopathological Analysis in a French National Cohort of Membranous Nephropathy (IHMN), NCT04326218.PodcastThis article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2022_10_25_CJN02930322.mp3.

Project description:ObjectiveThe presence of interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) in the electroencephalogram (EEG) is a key finding in the medical workup of a patient with suspected epilepsy. However, inter-rater agreement (IRA) regarding the presence of IED is imperfect, leading to incorrect and delayed diagnoses. An improved understanding of which IED attributes mediate expert IRA might help in developing automatic methods for IED detection able to emulate the abilities of experts. Therefore, using a set of IED scored by a large number of experts, we set out to determine which attributes of IED predict expert agreement regarding the presence of IED.MethodsIED were annotated on a 5-point scale by 18 clinical neurophysiologists within 200 30-s EEG segments from recordings of 200 patients. 5538 signal analysis features were extracted from the waveforms, including wavelet coefficients, morphological features, signal energy, nonlinear energy operator response, electrode location, and spectrogram features. Feature selection was performed by applying elastic net regression and support vector regression (SVR) was applied to predict expert opinion, with and without the feature selection procedure and with and without several types of signal normalization.ResultsMultiple types of features were useful for predicting expert annotations, but particular types of wavelet features performed best. Local EEG normalization also enhanced best model performance. As the size of the group of EEGers used to train the models was increased, the performance of the models leveled off at a group size of around 11.ConclusionsThe features that best predict inter-rater agreement among experts regarding the presence of IED are wavelet features, using locally standardized EEG. Our models for predicting expert opinion based on EEGer's scores perform best with a large group of EEGers (more than 10).SignificanceBy examining a large group of EEG signal analysis features we found that wavelet features with certain wavelet basis functions performed best to identify IEDs. Local normalization also improves predictability, suggesting the importance of IED morphology over amplitude-based features. Although most IED detection studies in the past have used opinion from three or fewer experts, our study suggests a "wisdom of the crowd" effect, such that pooling over a larger number of expert opinions produces a better correlation between expert opinion and objectively quantifiable features of the EEG.

Dataset Information

Agreement between an expert-rated mini job exposure matrix of occupational biomechanical exposures to the lower body and technical measurements or observation: a method comparison study.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Agreement between an expert-rated mini job exposure matrix of occupational biomechanical exposures to the lower body and technical measurements or observation: a method comparison study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets