OBJECTIVES: To compare assignment of occupational pesticide and solvent exposure using self-reported data collected by a computer assisted personal interview (CAPI) with exposure based on expert assessment of job codes. To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a CAPI to collect individual occupational exposure data. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2004, 1495 participants were interviewed using a CAPI for a case-control study of adult brain tumours and acoustic neuromas. Two types of occupational data were collected: (1) a full history, including job title from which a job code was assigned from the Standard Occupational Classification; and (2) specific details on pesticide and solvent exposure reported by participants. Study members' experiences of using the CAPI were recorded and advantages and disadvantages summarised. RESULTS: Of 7192 jobs recorded, the prevalence of self-reported exposure was 1.3% for pesticides and 11.5% for solvents. Comparing this with exposure expertly assessed from job titles showed 53.6% and 45.8% concordance for pesticides and solvents respectively. Advantages of the CAPI include no data entry stage, automatic input validation, and a reduction in interviewer bias. Disadvantages include an adverse effect on study implementation as a consequence of resources required for programming and difficulties encountered with data management prior to analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods of exposure assessment derive different exposure levels for pesticide and solvent exposure at work. Agreement between self-reported and expert assessment of exposure was greater for pesticides compared to solvents. The advantages of using a CAPI for the collection of complex data outweigh the disadvantages for interviewers and data quality but using such a method requires extra resources at the study outset.
OBJECTIVES: To compare assignment of occupational pesticide and solvent exposure using self-reported data collected by a computer assisted personal interview (CAPI) with exposure based on expert assessment of job codes. To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a CAPI to collect individual occupational exposure data. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2004, 1495 participants were interviewed using a CAPI for a case-control study of adult brain tumours and acoustic neuromas. Two types of occupational data were collected: (1) a full history, including job title from which a job code was assigned from the Standard Occupational Classification; and (2) specific details on pesticide and solvent exposure reported by participants. Study members' experiences of using the CAPI were recorded and advantages and disadvantages summarised. RESULTS: Of 7192 jobs recorded, the prevalence of self-reported exposure was 1.3% for pesticides and 11.5% for solvents. Comparing this with exposure expertly assessed from job titles showed 53.6% and 45.8% concordance for pesticides and solvents respectively. Advantages of the CAPI include no data entry stage, automatic input validation, and a reduction in interviewer bias. Disadvantages include an adverse effect on study implementation as a consequence of resources required for programming and difficulties encountered with data management prior to analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods of exposure assessment derive different exposure levels for pesticide and solvent exposure at work. Agreement between self-reported and expert assessment of exposure was greater for pesticides compared to solvents. The advantages of using a CAPI for the collection of complex data outweigh the disadvantages for interviewers and data quality but using such a method requires extra resources at the study outset.
Authors: K Teschke; A F Olshan; J L Daniels; A J De Roos; C G Parks; M Schulz; T L Vaughan Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Olufemi J Adegoke; Aaron Blair; Xiao Ou Shu; Maureen Sanderson; Cheryl L Addy; Mustafa Dosemeci; Wei Zheng Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Samuel M Goldman; Patricia J Quinlan; G Webster Ross; Connie Marras; Cheryl Meng; Grace S Bhudhikanok; Kathleen Comyns; Monica Korell; Anabel R Chade; Meike Kasten; Benjamin Priestley; Kelvin L Chou; Hubert H Fernandez; Franca Cambi; J William Langston; Caroline M Tanner Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-11-14 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Calvin B Ge; Melissa C Friesen; Hans Kromhout; Susan Peters; Nathaniel Rothman; Qing Lan; Roel Vermeulen Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.179
Authors: Claudine M Samanic; Anneclaire J De Roos; Patricia A Stewart; Preetha Rajaraman; Martha A Waters; Peter D Inskip Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-24 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Gabriel Gulis; Jana Kollarová; Zuzana Dietzová; Jana Labancová; Martina Behanová; Martina Ondrusová Journal: Cent Eur J Public Health Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 1.163