Arnaud Florentin1,2, Denis Zmirou-Navier3,4,5, Christophe Paris3,6. 1. INGRES, EA 7298, Lorraine University, Medical Faculty, 54505, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France. arnaud.florentin@univ-lorraine.fr. 2. Operational Team of Hospital Hygiene, CHRU de Nancy, Rue du Morvan, 54 505, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. arnaud.florentin@univ-lorraine.fr. 3. INGRES, EA 7298, Lorraine University, Medical Faculty, 54505, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France. 4. EHESP School of Public Health, Sorbonne-Paris Cité, Rennes, France. 5. Inserm U1085-IRSET, Rennes, France. 6. Occupational Diseases Department, CHRU Nancy, 54505, Vandoeuvre Les Nancy, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To detect new hazards ("signals"), occupational health monitoring systems mostly rest on the description of exposures in the jobs held and on reports by medical doctors; these are subject to declarative bias. Our study aims to assess whether job-exposure matrices (JEMs) could be useful tools for signal detection by improving exposure reporting. METHODS: Using the French national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network (RNV3P) data from 2001 to 2011, we explored the associations between disease and exposure prevalence for 3 well-known pathology/exposure couples and for one debatable couple. We compared the associations measured when using physicians' reports or applying the JEMs, respectively, for these selected diseases and across non-selected RNV3P population or for cases with musculoskeletal disorders, used as two reference groups; the ratio of exposure prevalences according to the two sources of information were computed for each disease category. RESULTS: Our population contained 58,188 subjects referred with pathologies related to work. Mean age at diagnosis was 45.8 years (95% CI 45.7; 45.9), and 57.2% were men. For experts, exposure ratios increase with knowledge on exposure causality. As expected, JEMs retrieved more exposed cases than experts (exposure ratios between 12 and 194), except for the couple silica/silicosis, but not for the MSD control group (ratio between 0.2 and 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: JEMs enhanced the number of exposures possibly linked with some conditions, compared to experts' assessment, relative to the whole database or to a reference group; they are less likely to suffer from declarative bias than reports by occupational health professionals.
OBJECTIVES: To detect new hazards ("signals"), occupational health monitoring systems mostly rest on the description of exposures in the jobs held and on reports by medical doctors; these are subject to declarative bias. Our study aims to assess whether job-exposure matrices (JEMs) could be useful tools for signal detection by improving exposure reporting. METHODS: Using the French national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network (RNV3P) data from 2001 to 2011, we explored the associations between disease and exposure prevalence for 3 well-known pathology/exposure couples and for one debatable couple. We compared the associations measured when using physicians' reports or applying the JEMs, respectively, for these selected diseases and across non-selected RNV3P population or for cases with musculoskeletal disorders, used as two reference groups; the ratio of exposure prevalences according to the two sources of information were computed for each disease category. RESULTS: Our population contained 58,188 subjects referred with pathologies related to work. Mean age at diagnosis was 45.8 years (95% CI 45.7; 45.9), and 57.2% were men. For experts, exposure ratios increase with knowledge on exposure causality. As expected, JEMs retrieved more exposed cases than experts (exposure ratios between 12 and 194), except for the couple silica/silicosis, but not for the MSD control group (ratio between 0.2 and 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: JEMs enhanced the number of exposures possibly linked with some conditions, compared to experts' assessment, relative to the whole database or to a reference group; they are less likely to suffer from declarative bias than reports by occupational health professionals.
Authors: L Laforest; D Luce; P Goldberg; D Bégin; M Gérin; P A Demers; J Brugère; A Leclerc Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: I Marie; J-F Gehanno; M Bubenheim; A-B Duval-Modeste; P Joly; S Dominique; P Bravard; D Noël; A-F Cailleux; J Weber; P Lagoutte; J Benichou; H Levesque Journal: Autoimmun Rev Date: 2013-10-12 Impact factor: 9.754
Authors: I Brüske-Hohlfeld; M Möhner; H Pohlabeln; W Ahrens; U Bolm-Audorff; L Kreienbrock; M Kreuzer; I Jahn; H E Wichmann; K H Jöckel Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-02-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jelle Vlaanderen; Kurt Straif; Eero Pukkala; Timo Kauppinen; Pentti Kyyrönen; Jan Ivar Martinsen; Kristina Kjaerheim; Laufey Tryggvadottir; Johnni Hansen; Pär Sparén; Elisabete Weiderpass Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Vincent Bonneterre; Dominique J Bicout; Linda Larabi; Cyril Bernardet; Anne Maitre; Pascale Tubert-Bitter; Régis de Gaudemaris Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2007-08-29 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: David H Garabrant; James V Lacey; Timothy J Laing; Brenda W Gillespie; Maureen D Mayes; Brenda C Cooper; David Schottenfeld Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lucile Migault; Joseph D Bowman; Hans Kromhout; Jordi Figuerola; Isabelle Baldi; Ghislaine Bouvier; Michelle C Turner; Elisabeth Cardis; Javier Vila Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 2.179