Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Orlowski, E.
Right arrow Articles by Brochard, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Orlowski, E.
Right arrow Articles by Brochard, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 22, S96-105, Copyright © 1993 by International Epidemiological Association

ARTICLES

Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure--II. At the job level: complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices

E Orlowski, H Pohlabeln, F Berrino, W Ahrens, U Bolm-Audorff, K Grossgarten, Y Iwatsubo, KH Jockel and P Brochard
INSERM U.139, CHU Henri Mondor, Creteil, France.

Retrospective assessment of asbestos exposure--II. At the job level: Complementarity of job-specific questionnaire and job exposure matrices. International Journal of Epidemiology 1993; 22 (Suppl. 2): S96-S105. The assessments of asbestos exposure by two a priori job exposure matrices (JEM) and by a job-specific questionnaire (SQ) are compared at job level. The data used for the comparison were generated by an ongoing case-control study on lung cancer in a region of northern Germany with a relatively high past prevalence of asbestos exposure. Among job periods assessed as unexposed by either JEM, 96% are recognized as such by the SQ. Discrepancies between the SQ and JEM were observed in jobs rated potentially exposed by the JEM. Despite varying estimates, the JEM and SQ were consistent as regards the relative classification of job periods by probability of exposure. The concordance of the methods, estimated by Kappa statistics, was stronger for the two JEM than for either of the JEM and the SQ. The identification of specific occupation/industry combinations in which discrepancies were most frequent and the comparison with expert ratings in some jobs yield insights into the sources of the disagreement between the methods. The misclassification of exposure by the JEM usually results in an overestimation of exposure. This is essentially related to loss of information due to the use of job codes as surrogates for job task descriptions and to the insufficiency of published data on asbestos exposure in different industries. As regards the SQ, two main sources of potential loss of sensitivity were identified: 1) possible omission of indirect sources of exposure by this method, 2) possible incompleteness of the SQ. The present comparison of methods of asbestos exposure assessment does not allow any one approach to be considered superior to another. Indeed, as proposed by Ahrens et al. in Part I of the study, both should be used to ensure optimal epidemiological performance.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.