Evaluation of the Validity of Job Exposure Matrix for Psychosocial Factors at Work
Evaluation of the Validity of Job Exposure Matrix for Psychosocial Factors at Work
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0108987
复制
发表时间：
2014-09-30
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Viikari-Juntura, Eira
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Solovieva, Svetlana;Pensola, Tiina;Viikari-Juntura, Eira
目的：为了研究一个发达的工作暴露矩阵（JEM）的性能，用于评估工作中的心理社会因素的准确性，可能的错误分类偏差和预测能力，以检测已知的关联与抑郁症和腰痛（LBP）。材料和方法：我们利用了两个大型人口调查（健康2000年研究和芬兰工作和健康调查），一个是为了构建JEM，另一个是为了测试矩阵的性能。在第一项研究中，通过面对面访谈收集了工作要求、工作控制、单调工作和工作中的社会支持等方面的信息。基于工作需求和工作控制，采用象限法对工作紧张进行操作化。在第二项研究中，采用贝叶斯方法估计灵敏度和特异性。通过计算作为JEM的敏感性和特异性的函数的偏倚比值比以及固定的真实患病率和比值比来检查误分类错误的大小。最后，我们调整了误分类错误的JEM措施和选定的健康outcomes.Results：矩阵之间的观察到的关联显示了良好的准确性，工作控制和工作压力，而其性能为其他曝光相对较低。没有纠正暴露错误分类，JEM能够检测到工作压力和抑郁症之间的关联，在男性和单调的工作和LBP在both genders.Conclusions：我们的研究结果表明，JEM更准确地识别职业与低控制和高压力比那些高要求或低社会支持。总的来说，目前的JEM是一个有用的来源，在流行病学研究缺乏个人层面的接触信息的工作层面的心理社会风险。此外，我们展示了贝叶斯方法在评估JEM性能的情况下的适用性，在实践中，不存在暴露评估的金标准。
Objective: To study the performance of a developed job exposure matrix (JEM) for the assessment of psychosocial factors at work in terms of accuracy, possible misclassification bias and predictive ability to detect known associations with depression and low back pain (LBP).Materials and Methods: We utilized two large population surveys (the Health 2000 Study and the Finnish Work and Health Surveys), one to construct the JEM and another to test matrix performance. In the first study, information on job demands, job control, monotonous work and social support at work was collected via face-to-face interviews. Job strain was operationalized based on job demands and job control using quadrant approach. In the second study, the sensitivity and specificity were estimated applying a Bayesian approach. The magnitude of misclassification error was examined by calculating the biased odds ratios as a function of the sensitivity and specificity of the JEM and fixed true prevalence and odds ratios. Finally, we adjusted for misclassification error the observed associations between JEM measures and selected health outcomes.Results: The matrix showed a good accuracy for job control and job strain, while its performance for other exposures was relatively low. Without correction for exposure misclassification, the JEM was able to detect the association between job strain and depression in men and between monotonous work and LBP in both genders.Conclusions: Our results suggest that JEM more accurately identifies occupations with low control and high strain than those with high demands or low social support. Overall, the present JEM is a useful source of job-level psychosocial exposures in epidemiological studies lacking individual-level exposure information. Furthermore, we showed the applicability of a Bayesian approach in the evaluation of the performance of the JEM in a situation where, in practice, no gold standard of exposure assessment exists.