Is farm-related job title an adequate surrogate for pesticide exposure in occupational cancer epidemiology?
Is farm-related job title an adequate surrogate for pesticide exposure in occupational cancer epidemiology?
复制标题
在职业癌症流行病学中，与农场相关的职称是否足以替代农药接触？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Lin Fritschi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Macfarlane;Deborah Catherine Glass;Lin Fritschi
目的：对暴露的准确评估是职业流行病学中的一个关键因素，但可能是有问题的，特别是当感兴趣的暴露可能距离相关的健康结果几十年的时候。传统上，研究依赖于仅基于职称的粗略暴露替代品，例如，与农场相关的职称作为农药暴露的替代品。方法：这项分析基于西澳大利亚2000-2001年间收集的数据。使用多元回归模型，我们比较了基于详细的个人特定问卷和工作特定模块访谈信息的专家评估的农药暴露可能性与报告的与农场相关的职位作为农药暴露的替代品。结果：大多数可能接触农药的工作(68.8%)是农场工作，但78.3%的农场工作被评估为不可能接触农药。在农作物农场的工作中，接触杀虫剂的可能性比在畜牧场更频繁。在最近几十年开始的工作和持续时间较长的工作中，可能的农药接触也更频繁。我们的结果表明，由于只有很小一部分非农业工作可能接触过杀虫剂，所以几乎没有错误的分类是由于所有非农业工作都不是接触过农药的反向假设造成的。结论：将所有农场工作归类为接触杀虫剂可能大大高估了接触杀虫剂的个人数量。我们的结果还表明，研究人员在评估农业工作中接触农药的可能性时，应特别关注农场类型、工龄和历史工龄。
Objectives: Accurate assessment of exposure is a key factor in occupational epidemiology but can be problematic, particularly where exposures of interest may be many decades removed from relevant health outcomes. Studies have traditionally relied on crude surrogates of exposure based on job title only, for instance farm-related job title as a surrogate for pesticide exposure. Methods: This analysis was based on data collected in Western Australia in 2000–2001. Using a multivariate regression model, we compared expert-assessed likelihood of pesticide exposure based on detailed, individual-specific questionnaire and job specific module interview information with reported farm-related job titles as a surrogate for pesticide exposure. Results: Most (68.8%) jobs with likely pesticide exposure were farm jobs, but 78.3% of farm jobs were assessed as having no likelihood of pesticide exposure. Likely pesticide exposure was more frequent among jobs on crop farms than on livestock farms. Likely pesticide exposure was also more frequent among jobs commenced in more recent decades and jobs of longer duration. Our results suggest that very little misclassification would have resulted from the inverse assumption that all non-farming jobs are not pesticide exposed since only a very small fraction of non-agricultural jobs were likely to have had pesticide exposure. Conclusions: Classification of all farm jobs as pesticide exposed is likely to substantially over-estimate the number of individuals exposed. Our results also suggest that researchers should pay special attention to farm type, length of service and historical period of employment when assessing the likelihood of pesticide exposure in farming jobs.