Floor Borlée1,2, C Joris Yzermans2, Floor S M Oostwegel1, François Schellevis2,3, Dick Heederik1, Lidwien A M Smit1. 1. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, NIVEL, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Attitudes toward environmental risks may be a source of bias in environmental health studies because concerns about environmental hazards may influence self-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The main aim was to assess whether earlier observed associations between proximity to goat farms and self-reported pneumonia were biased by participants' attitude toward farming. METHODS: We developed an attitude-score for 2,457 participants of the Dutch Livestock Farming and Neighbouring Residents' Health Study (veehouderij en gezondheid omwonenden) by factor analysis of 13 questionnaire items related to attitude toward livestock farming. Linear regression analysis was used to assess associations between attitude and potential determinants. The effect of attitude on the association between goat farm proximity and pneumonia was analyzed by evaluating (1) misclassification of the outcome, (2) effect modification by attitude, and (3) exclusion of participants reporting health problems due to farms in their environment. RESULTS: In general, the study population had a positive attitude toward farming, especially if participants were more familiar with farming. Older participants, females, ex-smokers, and higher-educated individuals had a more negative attitude. Both self-reported respiratory symptoms and exposure to livestock farms were associated with a more negative attitude. Misclassification of self-reported pneumonia was nondifferential with regard to participants' attitude. Furthermore, no indication was found that the association between proximity to goat farms and pneumonia was modified by attitude. Excluding subjects who attributed their health symptoms to livestock farms did also not change the association. CONCLUSIONS: The association between goat farm proximity and pneumonia was not substantially biased by study participants' attitude toward livestock farming.
Attitudes toward environmental risks may be a source of bias in environmental health studies because concerns about environmental hazards may influence self-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The main aim was to assess whether earlier observed associations between proximity to goat farms and self-reported pneumonia were biased by participants' attitude toward farming. METHODS: We developed an attitude-score for 2,457 participants of the Dutch Livestock Farming and Neighbouring Residents' Health Study (veehouderij en gezondheid omwonenden) by factor analysis of 13 questionnaire items related to attitude toward livestock farming. Linear regression analysis was used to assess associations between attitude and potential determinants. The effect of attitude on the association between goat farm proximity and pneumonia was analyzed by evaluating (1) misclassification of the outcome, (2) effect modification by attitude, and (3) exclusion of participants reporting health problems due to farms in their environment. RESULTS: In general, the study population had a positive attitude toward farming, especially if participants were more familiar with farming. Older participants, females, ex-smokers, and higher-educated individuals had a more negative attitude. Both self-reported respiratory symptoms and exposure to livestock farms were associated with a more negative attitude. Misclassification of self-reported pneumonia was nondifferential with regard to participants' attitude. Furthermore, no indication was found that the association between proximity to goat farms and pneumonia was modified by attitude. Excluding subjects who attributed their health symptoms to livestock farms did also not change the association. CONCLUSIONS: The association between goat farm proximity and pneumonia was not substantially biased by study participants' attitude toward livestock farming.
Authors: Alessandro Marcon; Giang Nguyen; Marta Rava; Marco Braggion; Mario Grassi; Maria Elisabetta Zanolin Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Jarry T Porsius; Liesbeth Claassen; Tjabe Smid; Fred Woudenberg; Keith J Petrie; Danielle R M Timmermans Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Floor Borlée; C Joris Yzermans; Bernadette Aalders; Jos Rooijackers; Esmeralda Krop; Catharina B M Maassen; François Schellevis; Bert Brunekreef; Dick Heederik; Lidwien A M Smit Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: P M C Huijbers; M de Kraker; E A M Graat; A H A M van Hoek; M G van Santen; M C M de Jong; E van Duijkeren; S C de Greeff Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Brigitte A van Cleef; Erwin J M Verkade; Mireille W Wulf; Anton G Buiting; Andreas Voss; Xander W Huijsdens; Wilfrid van Pelt; Mick N Mulders; Jan A Kluytmans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: I V F VAN DEN Broek; B A G L VAN Cleef; A Haenen; E M Broens; P J VAN DER Wolf; M J M VAN DEN Broek; X W Huijsdens; J A J W Kluytmans; A W VAN DE Giessen; E W Tiemersma Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Lidwien A M Smit; Femke van der Sman-de Beer; Annemieke W J Opstal-van Winden; Mariëtte Hooiveld; Johan Beekhuizen; Inge M Wouters; Joris Yzermans; Dick Heederik Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Brent W Auvermann; Rungano S Dzikamunhenga; Julie M Glanville; Julian P T Higgins; Shelley P Kirychuk; Jan M Sargeant; Sarah C Totton; Hannah Wood; Susanna G Von Essen Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-18
Authors: Dominika A Kalkowska; Gert Jan Boender; Lidwien A M Smit; Christos Baliatsas; Joris Yzermans; Dick J J Heederik; Thomas J Hagenaars Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240