These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Influence of errors in job codes on job exposure matrix-based exposure assessment in the register-based occupational cohort DOC*X.
    Author: Petersen SB, Flachs EM, Svendsen SW, Marott JL, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Hansen J, Stokholm ZA, Schlünssen V, Andersen JH, Bonde JP.
    Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health; 2020 May 01; 46(3):259-267. PubMed ID: 31642934.
    Abstract:
    Objective Job-exposure matrices (JEM) may be efficient for exposure assessment in occupational epidemiological studies, but they rely on valid job information. We evaluated the agreement between JEM-based exposure estimates according to self-reported job titles converted to DISCO-88 codes and according to register-based DISCO-88 codes in the Danish Occupational Cohort with eXposure data (DOC*X). Furthermore, we evaluated the agreement between these two sets of DISCO-88 codes. Methods We used JEM regarding wood dust, lifting, standing/walking, arm elevation >90°, and noise from DOC*X. Participants from previous questionnaire studies were assigned JEM-based exposure estimates using (i) self-reported job titles converted to DISCO-88 codes and (ii) DISCO-88 codes registered in DOC*X, in four time periods (1976-78: N=7707; 1981-83: N=2193; 1991-94: N=2664; 2004: N=11 782). Agreement between the exposure estimates and between the DISCO-88 codes (four-digit levels, 1-4) was evaluated by kappa (κ) statistics. Sensitivities were calculated using the self-reported observation as the gold standard. Results We found substantial agreement (κ>0.60) between exposure estimates for all types of job-exposures and all time periods except for one κ. Low sensitivity (30-65%) was found for the period 1981-83, but for the other time periods the sensitivities varied between 60-91%. For individual 4-digit DISCO-88 codes, the sensitivities varied substantially and overall the sensitivities increased by lower digit level of DISCO-88. Conclusion The validity of the DISCO-88 codes in DOC*X was generally high. Substantial agreement was found for the JEM-based exposure estimates and the DISCO-88 codes per se, although the DISCO-88 code-specific agreement varied across digit levels and time periods.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]