BACKGROUND: Previous studies have described increased occurrence of asthma among healthcare workers, but to our knowledge there are no validated survey questionnaires with which to study this occupational group. AIMS: To develop, validate, and refine a new survey instrument on asthma for use in epidemiological studies of healthcare workers. METHODS: An initial draft questionnaire, designed by a multidisciplinary team, used previously validated questions where possible; the occupational exposure section was developed by updating health services specific chemical lists through hospital walk-through surveys and review of material safety data sheets. A cross-sectional validation study was conducted in 118 non-smoking subjects, who also underwent bronchial challenge testing, an interview with an industrial hygienist, and measurement of specific IgE antibodies to common aeroallergens. RESULTS: The final version consisted of 43 main questions in four sections. Time to completion of the questionnaire ranged from 13 to 25 minutes. Test-retest reliability of asthma and allergy items ranged from 75% to 94%, and internal consistency for these items was excellent (Cronbach's alpha > or = 0.86). Against methacholine challenge, an eight item combination of asthma related symptoms had a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 70%; against a physician diagnosis of asthma, this same combination showed a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 98%. Agreement between self-reported exposures and industrial hygienist review was similar to previous studies and only moderate, indicating the need to incorporate more reliable methods of exposure assessment. Against the aerollergen panel, the best combinations of sensitivity and specificity were obtained for a history of allergies to dust, dust mite, and animals. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation of this new questionnaire indicates good validity and reliability, and further field testing and cross-validation in a larger healthcare worker population is in progress. The need for development of more reliable occupational exposure assessment methods that go beyond self-report is underscored.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have described increased occurrence of asthma among healthcare workers, but to our knowledge there are no validated survey questionnaires with which to study this occupational group. AIMS: To develop, validate, and refine a new survey instrument on asthma for use in epidemiological studies of healthcare workers. METHODS: An initial draft questionnaire, designed by a multidisciplinary team, used previously validated questions where possible; the occupational exposure section was developed by updating health services specific chemical lists through hospital walk-through surveys and review of material safety data sheets. A cross-sectional validation study was conducted in 118 non-smoking subjects, who also underwent bronchial challenge testing, an interview with an industrial hygienist, and measurement of specific IgE antibodies to common aeroallergens. RESULTS: The final version consisted of 43 main questions in four sections. Time to completion of the questionnaire ranged from 13 to 25 minutes. Test-retest reliability of asthma and allergy items ranged from 75% to 94%, and internal consistency for these items was excellent (Cronbach's alpha > or = 0.86). Against methacholine challenge, an eight item combination of asthma related symptoms had a sensitivity of 71% and specificity of 70%; against a physician diagnosis of asthma, this same combination showed a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 98%. Agreement between self-reported exposures and industrial hygienist review was similar to previous studies and only moderate, indicating the need to incorporate more reliable methods of exposure assessment. Against the aerollergen panel, the best combinations of sensitivity and specificity were obtained for a history of allergies to dust, dust mite, and animals. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation of this new questionnaire indicates good validity and reliability, and further field testing and cross-validation in a larger healthcare worker population is in progress. The need for development of more reliable occupational exposure assessment methods that go beyond self-report is underscored.
Authors: P G Burney; L A Laitinen; S Perdrizet; H Huckauf; A E Tattersfield; S Chinn; N Poisson; A Heeren; J R Britton; T Jones Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Michael D McClean; Karl T Kelsey; Jennette D Sison; Charles P Quesenberry; Margaret R Wrensch; John K Wiencke Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: George L Delclos; David Gimeno; Ahmed A Arif; Keith D Burau; Arch Carson; Christine Lusk; Thomas Stock; Elaine Symanski; Lawrence W Whitehead; Jan-Paul Zock; Fernando G Benavides; Josep M Antó Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-12-21 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Morgan N Caridi; Michael J Humann; Xiaoming Liang; Feng-Chiao Su; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Ryan F LeBouf; Marcia L Stanton; M Abbas Virji; Paul K Henneberger Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Feng-Chiao Su; Melissa C Friesen; Michael Humann; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Marcia L Stanton; Xiaoming Liang; Ryan F LeBouf; Paul K Henneberger; M Abbas Virji Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Ryan F LeBouf; M Abbas Virji; Rena Saito; Paul K Henneberger; Nancy Simcox; Aleksandr B Stefaniak Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Jenil Patel; David Gimeno Ruiz de Porras; Laura E Mitchell; Riddhi R Patel; Joy De Los Reyes; George L Delclos Journal: Workplace Health Saf Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 1.413
Authors: George L Delclos; David Gimeno; Ahmed A Arif; Fernando G Benavides; Jan-Paul Zock Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Karla Romero Starke; Sophie Friedrich; Melanie Schubert; Daniel Kämpf; Maria Girbig; Anna Pretzsch; Albert Nienhaus; Andreas Seidler Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390