Annett Dalbøge1, Gert-Åke Hansson2, Poul Frost1, Johan Hviid Andersen3, Thomas Heilskov-Hansen4, Susanne Wulff Svendsen3. 1. Department of Occupational Medicine, Danish Ramazzini Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University and Regional Laboratories Region Scania, Lund, Sweden Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 3. Department of Occupational Medicine, Danish Ramazzini Centre, Regional Hospital West Jutland-University Research Clinic, Herning, Denmark. 4. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We recently constructed a general population job exposure matrix (JEM), The Shoulder JEM, based on expert ratings. The overall aim of this study was to convert expert-rated job exposures for upper arm elevation and repetitive shoulder movements to measurement scales. METHODS: The Shoulder JEM covers all Danish occupational titles, divided into 172 job groups. For 36 of these job groups, we obtained technical measurements (inclinometry) of upper arm elevation and repetitive shoulder movements. To validate the expert-rated job exposures against the measured job exposures, we used Spearman rank correlations and the explained variance[Formula: see text] according to linear regression analyses (36 job groups). We used the linear regression equations to convert the expert-rated job exposures for all 172 job groups into predicted measured job exposures. Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess the agreement between the predicted and measured job exposures. RESULTS: The Spearman rank correlations were 0.63 for upper arm elevation and 0.64 for repetitive shoulder movements. The expert-rated job exposures explained 64% and 41% of the variance of the measured job exposures, respectively. The corresponding calibration equations were y=0.5%time+0.16×expert rating and y=27°/s+0.47×expert rating. The mean differences between predicted and measured job exposures were zero due to calibration; the 95% limits of agreement were ±2.9% time for upper arm elevation >90° and ±33°/s for repetitive shoulder movements. CONCLUSIONS: The updated Shoulder JEM can be used to present exposure-response relationships on measurement scales. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
OBJECTIVES: We recently constructed a general population job exposure matrix (JEM), The Shoulder JEM, based on expert ratings. The overall aim of this study was to convert expert-rated job exposures for upper arm elevation and repetitive shoulder movements to measurement scales. METHODS: The Shoulder JEM covers all Danish occupational titles, divided into 172 job groups. For 36 of these job groups, we obtained technical measurements (inclinometry) of upper arm elevation and repetitive shoulder movements. To validate the expert-rated job exposures against the measured job exposures, we used Spearman rank correlations and the explained variance[Formula: see text] according to linear regression analyses (36 job groups). We used the linear regression equations to convert the expert-rated job exposures for all 172 job groups into predicted measured job exposures. Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess the agreement between the predicted and measured job exposures. RESULTS: The Spearman rank correlations were 0.63 for upper arm elevation and 0.64 for repetitive shoulder movements. The expert-rated job exposures explained 64% and 41% of the variance of the measured job exposures, respectively. The corresponding calibration equations were y=0.5%time+0.16×expert rating and y=27°/s+0.47×expert rating. The mean differences between predicted and measured job exposures were zero due to calibration; the 95% limits of agreement were ±2.9% time for upper arm elevation >90° and ±33°/s for repetitive shoulder movements. CONCLUSIONS: The updated Shoulder JEM can be used to present exposure-response relationships on measurement scales. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Omid Jahanian; Meegan G Van Straaten; Brianna M Goodwin; Stephen M Cain; Ryan J Lennon; Jonathan D Barlow; Naveen S Murthy; Melissa M B Morrow Journal: Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil Date: 2021-08-13
Authors: Marcus Yung; Ann Marie Dale; Skye Buckner-Petty; Yves Roquelaure; Alexis Descatha; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.079
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Christine C Ekenga; Skye Buckner-Petty; Linda Merlino; Matthew S Thiese; Stephen Bao; Alysha Rose Meyers; Carisa Harris-Adamson; Jay Kapellusch; Ellen A Eisen; Fred Gerr; Kurt T Hegmann; Barbara Silverstein; Arun Garg; David Rempel; Angelique Zeringue; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Alexis Descatha; Ann Marie Dale; Bradley Evanoff; Marcus Yung; Skye Buckner-Petty; Matthew Baca; Johan Hviid Andersen; Yves Roquelaure Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Brianna M Goodwin; Omid Jahanian; Stephen M Cain; Meegan G Van Straaten; Emma Fortune; Melissa M Morrow Journal: Front Sports Act Living Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Marcus Yung; Bradley A Evanoff; Skye Buckner-Petty; Yves Roquelaure; Alexis Descatha; Ann Marie Dale Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Alexis Descatha; Ann Marie Dale; Bradley A Evanoff; Marcus Yung; Skye Buckner-Petty; Johan Hviid Andersen; Yves Roquelaure Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 4.402