Marcus Yung1,2, Ann Marie Dale1, Skye Buckner-Petty1, Yves Roquelaure3, Alexis Descatha3,4,5, Bradley A Evanoff1. 1. Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 2. Canadian Institute for Safety, Wellness, & Performance, Conestoga College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Kitchener, Canada. 3. INSERM, U1085, IRSET (Institute de recherché en santé, environnement et travail), ESTER Team, University of Angers, Angers, France. 4. AP-HP, EMS (Samu92), Occupational Health Unit, Raymond Poincaré University Hospital, Garches, France. 5. INSERM, UMR 1168 UM2011, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Villejuif, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A job-exposure matrix (JEM) is an efficient method to assign physical workplace exposures based on job titles. JEMs offer the possibility of linking work exposures to outcome data from national health registers that contain job titles. The French CONSTANCES JEM was constructed from self-reported physical work exposures of asymptomatic workers participating in a large general population study. We validated this general population JEM by testing its ability to demonstrate exposure-outcome associations for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) symptoms. METHODS: The CONSTANCES JEM was evaluated by assigning exposure estimates to a validation sample of new participants in the CONSTANCES study (final n = 38 730). We used weighted Kappas to compare the level of agreement between JEM-assigned and self-reported exposures across job codes for each of the 27 physical exposure variables. We computed prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals using Poisson regression models adjusted for age and sex for pain at six body locations associated with work exposures estimated via individual self-report and by the JEM. RESULTS: Agreement between individual self-reported and JEM-assigned exposures ranged from κ = 0.16 to 0.71; generally, the level of agreement was fair to good. We observed consistent and significant associations between pain and both self-reported and JEM-assigned exposures at all body locations. CONCLUSIONS: The CONSTANCES JEM replicated known associations between physical risk factors and prevalent MSD symptoms. Physical exposure JEMs can reduce some types of information bias, and open new avenues of research in the prevention of MSDs and other health conditions related to workplace physical activities.
BACKGROUND: A job-exposure matrix (JEM) is an efficient method to assign physical workplace exposures based on job titles. JEMs offer the possibility of linking work exposures to outcome data from national health registers that contain job titles. The French CONSTANCES JEM was constructed from self-reported physical work exposures of asymptomatic workers participating in a large general population study. We validated this general population JEM by testing its ability to demonstrate exposure-outcome associations for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) symptoms. METHODS: The CONSTANCES JEM was evaluated by assigning exposure estimates to a validation sample of new participants in the CONSTANCES study (final n = 38 730). We used weighted Kappas to compare the level of agreement between JEM-assigned and self-reported exposures across job codes for each of the 27 physical exposure variables. We computed prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals using Poisson regression models adjusted for age and sex for pain at six body locations associated with work exposures estimated via individual self-report and by the JEM. RESULTS: Agreement between individual self-reported and JEM-assigned exposures ranged from κ = 0.16 to 0.71; generally, the level of agreement was fair to good. We observed consistent and significant associations between pain and both self-reported and JEM-assigned exposures at all body locations. CONCLUSIONS: The CONSTANCES JEM replicated known associations between physical risk factors and prevalent MSD symptoms. Physical exposure JEMs can reduce some types of information bias, and open new avenues of research in the prevention of MSDs and other health conditions related to workplace physical activities.
Authors: A Seidler; U Bolm-Audorff; H Heiskel; N Henkel; B Roth-Küver; U Kaiser; R Bickeböller; W J Willingstorfer; W Beck; G Elsner Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Philip Harber; Henry Muranko; Stephen Shvartsblat; Sophia Solis; Ani Torossian; Tilly Oren Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Alexis Descatha; Bradley A Evanoff; Johan H Andersen; Marc Fadel; Laure Ngabirano; Annette Leclerc; Ann Marie Dale; Yves Roquelaure Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: E Viikari-Juntura; S Rauas; R Martikainen; E Kuosma; H Riihimäki; E P Takala; K Saarenmaa Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Svetlana Solovieva; Tiina Pensola; Johanna Kausto; Rahman Shiri; Markku Heliövaara; Alex Burdorf; Kirsti Husgafvel-Pursiainen; Eira Viikari-Juntura Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 3.240
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: 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
Authors: Fahad Saad Algarni; Hatem Askar Alkhaldi; Hamayun Zafar; Shaji John Kachanathu; Abdullah M Al-Shenqiti; Abdulrahman Mohammed Altowaijri Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 3.390