Work

Comparison Between a Self-Reported Job Exposure Matrix (JEM CONSTANCES) to an Expertise-Based Job Exposure Matrix (MADE) for Biomechanical Exposures

Year: 2019

Type: article

Abstract: Readers are invited to submit letters for publication in this department. Submit letters online at http://joem.edmgr.com. Choose “Submit New Manuscript.” A signed copyright assignment and financial disclosure form must be submitted with the letter. Form available at http://www.joem.org under Author and Reviewer information. To the Editor: Job exposure matrices are becoming more and more widely used,1 including use for estimation of biomechanical exposures.2 In the context of providing exposure data available for international research, an international team created an employment exposure matrix from the first available data from the Constances cohort, called “JEM Constances.”3 As part of ongoing efforts to compare different JEMs,4 we compared similar exposure variables from JEM Constances to those assigned in a JEM used for public health purposes in the same country, the French “MADE” (“Matrice Associant Difficultés physiques au travail et Emploi,” French for “difficult physical conditions and job matrix”).5,6 We studied the correlation and the agreement of exposure estimates for different job titles between these two matrices. Briefly, the Constances cohort created a JEM based on self-reported exposures to 27 different biomechanical factors at the level of the job, using the French “professions et catégories socioprofessionnelles (PCS) 2003” national job codes.3 The MADE matrix coded 17 different exposures using consensus estimates from occupational health experts, using the same PCS codes.5 The relevant variables were crossed to obtain Spearman correlation coefficients for JEM Constances and MADE, using the PCS 2003 code as a unit and using the subject by applying the two matrices on available data on Constances cohort. Three categories for variables of both JEM Constances and MADE were also obtained based on the tertiles of the distribution using Constances cohort. Thus, a calculation of a Kappa agreement was also performed with similar units. The results on the selected variables are fairly good (Table 1) except for exposures to the neck and to work in cold environment (less than 10 °C), where some coefficients were lower than 0.5.TABLE 1: Correlation and Agreement Between JEM-Constances (Self-Report Assessed in Constances Cohort) and MADE (Expert Based Matrix)These results confirm that a matrix based on a self-reported assessment exposure matrix and one based on expert estimates of exposure provide similar overall results. Although the statistical analyses were simple, using only an overall evaluation of correlation and agreement between the two approaches, the demonstration of broadly similar results using two different exposure methods may aid the comparison of studies using different exposure methods. Acknowledgments This study was supported by research funding from the American National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH R01OH011076). The French CONSTANCES Cohort is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-INBS-0002), Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des travailleurs salariés-CNAMTS, and is funded by the Institut de Recherche en Santé Publique/Institut Thématique Santé Publique, and the following sponsors: Ministère de la santé et des sports, Ministère délégué à la recherche, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, Institut national du cancer et Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie, as well as Institute for research in public health (IReSP, CapaciT project).

Source: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

DOI: 10.1097/jom.0000000000001654