Danielle N Medgyesi1, Jared A Fisher2, Abigail R Flory3, Richard B Hayes4, George D Thurston4, Linda M Liao5, Mary H Ward2, Debra T Silverman2, Rena R Jones2. 1. Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States. Electronic address: danielle.medgyesi@nih.gov. 2. Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States. 3. Westat Inc, Rockville, MD, United States. 4. Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States. 5. Metabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Commercial databases can be used to identify participant addresses over time, but their quality and impact on environmental exposure assessment is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a commercial database to find residences and estimate environmental exposures for study participants. METHODS: We searched LexisNexis® for participant addresses in the Los Angeles Ultrafines Study, a prospective cohort of men and women aged 50-71 years. At enrollment (1995-1996) and follow-up (2004-2005), we evaluated attainment (address found for the corresponding time period) and match rates to survey addresses by participant characteristics. We compared geographically-referenced predictors and estimates of ultrafine particulate matter (UFP) exposure from a land use regression model using LexisNexis and survey addresses at enrollment. RESULTS: LexisNexis identified an address for 69% of participants at enrollment (N = 50,320) and 95% of participants at follow-up (N = 24,432). Attainment rate at enrollment modestly differed (≥5%) by age, smoking status, education, and residential mobility between surveys. The match rate at both survey periods was high (82-86%) and similar across characteristics. When using LexisNexis versus survey addresses, correlations were high for continuous values of UFP exposure and its predictors (rho = 0.86-0.92). SIGNIFICANCE: Time period and population characteristics influenced the attainment of addresses from a commercial database, but accuracy and subsequent estimation of specific air pollution exposures were high in our older study population. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Commercial databases can be used to identify participant addresses over time, but their quality and impact on environmental exposure assessment is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a commercial database to find residences and estimate environmental exposures for study participants. METHODS: We searched LexisNexis® for participant addresses in the Los Angeles Ultrafines Study, a prospective cohort of men and women aged 50-71 years. At enrollment (1995-1996) and follow-up (2004-2005), we evaluated attainment (address found for the corresponding time period) and match rates to survey addresses by participant characteristics. We compared geographically-referenced predictors and estimates of ultrafine particulate matter (UFP) exposure from a land use regression model using LexisNexis and survey addresses at enrollment. RESULTS: LexisNexis identified an address for 69% of participants at enrollment (N = 50,320) and 95% of participants at follow-up (N = 24,432). Attainment rate at enrollment modestly differed (≥5%) by age, smoking status, education, and residential mobility between surveys. The match rate at both survey periods was high (82-86%) and similar across characteristics. When using LexisNexis versus survey addresses, correlations were high for continuous values of UFP exposure and its predictors (rho = 0.86-0.92). SIGNIFICANCE: Time period and population characteristics influenced the attainment of addresses from a commercial database, but accuracy and subsequent estimation of specific air pollution exposures were high in our older study population. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Air pollution; Analytic methods; Cancer; Epidemiology; Geospatial analyses
Authors: Rena R Jones; Gerard Hoek; Jared A Fisher; Sina Hasheminassab; Dongbin Wang; Mary H Ward; Constantinos Sioutas; Roel Vermeulen; Debra T Silverman Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Chris C Lim; Richard B Hayes; Jiyoung Ahn; Yongzhao Shao; Debra T Silverman; Rena R Jones; Cynthia Garcia; George D Thurston Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Perry Hystad; Paul A Demers; Kenneth C Johnson; Jeff Brook; Aaron van Donkelaar; Lok Lamsal; Randall Martin; Michael Brauer Journal: Environ Health Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: George D Thurston; Jiyoung Ahn; Kevin R Cromar; Yongzhao Shao; Harmony R Reynolds; Michael Jerrett; Chris C Lim; Ryan Shanley; Yikyung Park; Richard B Hayes Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Susan Hurley; Andrew Hertz; David O Nelson; Michael Layefsky; Julie Von Behren; Leslie Bernstein; Dennis Deapen; Peggy Reynolds Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Rob Beelen; Gerard Hoek; Piet A van den Brandt; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Paul Fischer; Leo J Schouten; Michael Jerrett; Edward Hughes; Ben Armstrong; Bert Brunekreef Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Marquita S Brooks; Aleena Bennett; Gina S Lovasi; Philip M Hurvitz; Natalie Colabianchi; Virginia J Howard; Jennifer Manly; Suzanne E Judd Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2021-08-03