E L Yanik1,2, M J Stevens3,4, E Clare Harris3,4, K E Walker-Bone3,4, A M Dale5, Y Ma5, G A Colditz2, B A Evanoff5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Health and Work, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 4. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 5. Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: UK Biobank (UKB) is a large prospective cohort capturing numerous health outcomes, but limited occupational information (job title, self-reported manual work and occupational walking/standing). AIMS: To create and evaluate validity of a linkage between UKB and a job exposure matrix for physical work exposures based on the US Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database. METHODS: Job titles and UK Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes were collected during UKB baseline assessment visits. Using existing crosswalks, UK SOC codes were mapped to US SOC codes allowing linkage to O*NET variables capturing numerous dimensions of physical work. Job titles with the highest O*NET scores were assessed to evaluate face validity. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated to compare O*NET scores to self-reported UKB measures. RESULTS: Among 324 114 participants reporting job titles, 323 936 were linked to O*NET. Expected relationships between scores and self-reported measures were observed. For static strength (0-7 scale), the median O*NET score was 1.0 (e.g. audiologists), with a highest score of 4.88 for stone masons and a positive correlation with self-reported heavy manual work (Spearman's coefficient = 0.50). For time spent standing (1-5 scale), the median O*NET score was 2.72 with a highest score of 5 for cooks and a positive correlation with self-reported occupational walking/standing (Spearman's coefficient = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: While most jobs were not physically demanding, a wide range of physical work values were assigned to a diverse set of jobs. This novel linkage of a job exposure matrix to UKB provides a potentially valuable tool for understanding relationships between occupational exposures and disease.
BACKGROUND: UK Biobank (UKB) is a large prospective cohort capturing numerous health outcomes, but limited occupational information (job title, self-reported manual work and occupational walking/standing). AIMS: To create and evaluate validity of a linkage between UKB and a job exposure matrix for physical work exposures based on the US Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database. METHODS: Job titles and UK Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes were collected during UKB baseline assessment visits. Using existing crosswalks, UK SOC codes were mapped to US SOC codes allowing linkage to O*NET variables capturing numerous dimensions of physical work. Job titles with the highest O*NET scores were assessed to evaluate face validity. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated to compare O*NET scores to self-reported UKB measures. RESULTS: Among 324 114 participants reporting job titles, 323 936 were linked to O*NET. Expected relationships between scores and self-reported measures were observed. For static strength (0-7 scale), the median O*NET score was 1.0 (e.g. audiologists), with a highest score of 4.88 for stone masons and a positive correlation with self-reported heavy manual work (Spearman's coefficient = 0.50). For time spent standing (1-5 scale), the median O*NET score was 2.72 with a highest score of 5 for cooks and a positive correlation with self-reported occupational walking/standing (Spearman's coefficient = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: While most jobs were not physically demanding, a wide range of physical work values were assigned to a diverse set of jobs. This novel linkage of a job exposure matrix to UKB provides a potentially valuable tool for understanding relationships between occupational exposures and disease.
Authors: A d'Errico; L Punnett; M Cifuentes; J Boyer; J Tessler; R Gore; P Scollin; C Slatin Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 4.402
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: Nadine S M Offermans; Roel Vermeulen; Alex Burdorf; Susan Peters; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Tom Koeman; Martie van Tongeren; T Kauppinen; Ijmert Kant; Hans Kromhout; Piet A van den Brandt Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Jaime Strickland; Bethany Gardner; Juergen Symanzik; Bradley Allen Evanoff Journal: Int J Occup Environ Health Date: 2010 Jan-Mar
Authors: Sara De Matteis; Deborah Jarvis; Heather Young; Alan Young; Naomi Allen; James Potts; Andrew Darnton; Lesley Rushton; Paul Cullinan Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Teri A Manolio; Brenda K Weis; Catherine C Cowie; Robert N Hoover; Kathy Hudson; Barnett S Kramer; Chris Berg; Rory Collins; Wendy Ewart; J Michael Gaziano; Steven Hirschfeld; Pamela M Marcus; Daniel Masys; Catherine A McCarty; John McLaughlin; Alpa V Patel; Tim Peakman; Nancy L Pedersen; Catherine Schaefer; Joan A Scott; Timothy Sprosen; Mark Walport; Francis S Collins Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Eirini Dimakakou; Helinor J Johnston; George Streftaris; John W Cherrie Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ida E H Madsen; Nidhi Gupta; Esben Budtz-Jørgensen; Jens Peter Bonde; Elisabeth Framke; Esben Meulengracht Flachs; Sesilje Bondo Petersen; Annemette Coop Svane-Petersen; Andreas Holtermann; Reiner Rugulies Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Elizabeth L Yanik; Bradley A Evanoff; Ann Marie Dale; Yinjiao Ma; Karen E Walker-Bone Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 4.135