OBJECTIVES: The healthy worker survivor effect is a bias that occurs in occupational studies when less healthy workers are more likely to reduce their workplace exposures. When variables on the pathway from health status to exposure are measured, g-methods can avoid this bias. However, studies in which follow-up ends at employment termination have additional potential for selection bias. This paper examines the structure of the healthy worker survivor effect, compares results with and without censoring at employment termination, and addresses how to prevent bias when such censoring occurs. METHODS: G-estimation of structural accelerated failure time models was applied in the United Autoworkers-General Motors cohort study to examine relationships between metalworking fluid exposure and cause-specific mortality. Subjects were followed from hire through 1994, regardless of employment status. To answer the central question, g-estimation analysis was repeated after truncating at employment termination and censoring outcomes that occurred thereafter, with adjustment for censoring by inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Using full follow-up time, HRs were estimated for all-cause mortality (1.09), ischaemic heart disease death (1.19), and death from any cancer (1.09), comparing 5 years of metalworking fluid exposure to no exposure. For all three outcomes, the HR estimates based on data censored at termination of employment were below 1 (respectively, 0.92, 0.97, 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: In this application, g-estimation together with weighting did not prevent selection bias due to employment termination. However, the bias might be avoided in studies with measured health-related variables on the pathway from health status to employment termination.
OBJECTIVES: The healthy worker survivor effect is a bias that occurs in occupational studies when less healthy workers are more likely to reduce their workplace exposures. When variables on the pathway from health status to exposure are measured, g-methods can avoid this bias. However, studies in which follow-up ends at employment termination have additional potential for selection bias. This paper examines the structure of the healthy worker survivor effect, compares results with and without censoring at employment termination, and addresses how to prevent bias when such censoring occurs. METHODS: G-estimation of structural accelerated failure time models was applied in the United Autoworkers-General Motors cohort study to examine relationships between metalworking fluid exposure and cause-specific mortality. Subjects were followed from hire through 1994, regardless of employment status. To answer the central question, g-estimation analysis was repeated after truncating at employment termination and censoring outcomes that occurred thereafter, with adjustment for censoring by inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Using full follow-up time, HRs were estimated for all-cause mortality (1.09), ischaemic heart disease death (1.19), and death from any cancer (1.09), comparing 5 years of metalworking fluid exposure to no exposure. For all three outcomes, the HR estimates based on data censored at termination of employment were below 1 (respectively, 0.92, 0.97, 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: In this application, g-estimation together with weighting did not prevent selection bias due to employment termination. However, the bias might be avoided in studies with measured health-related variables on the pathway from health status to employment termination.
Authors: Andreas M Neophytou; Sadie Costello; Daniel M Brown; Sally Picciotto; Elizabeth M Noth; S Katharine Hammond; Mark R Cullen; Ellen A Eisen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Adrienne L Johnson; Naomi C Nystrom; Megan E Piper; Jessica Cook; Derek L Norton; Megan Zuelsdorff; Mary F Wyman; Susan Flowers Benton; Nickolas H Lambrou; John O'Hara; Nathaniel A Chin; Sanjay Asthana; Cynthia Carlsson; Carey E Gleason Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Daniel M Brown; Maya Petersen; Sadie Costello; Elizabeth M Noth; Katherine Hammond; Mark Cullen; Mark van der Laan; Ellen Eisen Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Alysha R Meyers; Steven J Wurzelbacher; Edward F Krieg; Jessica G Ramsey; Kenneth Crombie; Annette L Christianson; Lian Luo; Susan Burt Journal: Hum Factors Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 2.888
Authors: Peter Stephen; Thulasingam Mahalakshmy; Rajaram Manju; Karthik B Laksham; Sudalai Subramani; Kanhu Panda; Sonali Sarkar Journal: Indian J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018 Jan-Apr