Sharon R Silver1, Rebecca J Tsai1, Cyllene R Morris2, James M Boiano1, Jun Ju1, Marilyn S Scocozza2, Geoffrey M Calvert1. 1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. California Cancer Reporting and Epidemiologic Surveillance Program, Institute for Population Health Improvement, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Industry and occupation (I&O) information collected by cancer registries is useful for assessing associations among jobs and malignancies. However, systematic differences in I&O availability can bias findings. METHODS: Codability by patient demographics, payor, identifying (casefinding) source, and cancer site was assessed using I&O text from first primaries diagnosed 2011-2012 and reported to California Cancer Registry. I&O were coded to a U.S. Census code or classified as blank/inadequate/unknown, retired, or not working for pay. RESULTS: Industry was codable for 37% of cases; 50% had "unknown" and 9% "retired" instead of usual industry. Cases initially reported by hospitals, covered by preferred providers, or with known occupational etiology had highest codable industry; cases from private pathology laboratories, with Medicaid, or diagnosed in outpatient settings had least. Occupation results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Recording usual I&O for retirees and improving linkages for reporting entities without patient access would improve I&O codability and research validity.
INTRODUCTION: Industry and occupation (I&O) information collected by cancer registries is useful for assessing associations among jobs and malignancies. However, systematic differences in I&O availability can bias findings. METHODS: Codability by patient demographics, payor, identifying (casefinding) source, and cancer site was assessed using I&O text from first primaries diagnosed 2011-2012 and reported to California Cancer Registry. I&O were coded to a U.S. Census code or classified as blank/inadequate/unknown, retired, or not working for pay. RESULTS: Industry was codable for 37% of cases; 50% had "unknown" and 9% "retired" instead of usual industry. Cases initially reported by hospitals, covered by preferred providers, or with known occupational etiology had highest codable industry; cases from private pathology laboratories, with Medicaid, or diagnosed in outpatient settings had least. Occupation results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Recording usual I&O for retirees and improving linkages for reporting entities without patient access would improve I&O codability and research validity.
Authors: Laura A McClure; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Monique N Hernandez; Jill A Mackinnon; Natasha Schaefer Solle; Alberto J Caban-Martinez; David J Lee; Erin Kobetz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240