Palmer K T, Haward B, Griffin M J, Bendall H, Coggon D
MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Community Clinical Sciences, University of Southampton, UK.
Occup Environ Med. 2000 Apr;57(4):237-41. doi: 10.1136/oem.57.4.237.
To assess the accuracy with which workers report their exposure to occupational sources of hand transmitted (HTV) and whole body vibration (WBV).
179 Workers from various jobs involving exposure to HTV or WBV completed a self administered questionnaire about sources of occupational exposure to vibration in the past week. They were then observed at work over 1 hour, after which they completed a second questionnaire concerning their exposures during this observation period. The feasibility of reported sources of exposure during the past week was examined by questioning managers and by inspection of tools and machines in the workplace. The accuracy of reported sources and durations of exposure in the 1 hour period were assessed relative to what had been observed.
The feasibility of exposure in the previous week was confirmed for 97% of subjects who reported exposure to HTV, and for 93% of subjects who reported exposure to WBV. The individual sources of exposure reported were generally plausible, but occupational use of cars was substantially overreported, possibly because of confusion with their use in travel to and from work. The accuracy of exposures reported during the observation period was generally high, but some sources of HTV were confused-for example, nailing and stapling guns reported as riveting hammers, and hammer drills not distinguished from other sorts of drill. Workers overestimated their duration of exposure to HTV by a median factor of 2.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.6-5.9), but estimated durations of exposure were more accurate when the exposure was relatively continuous rather than for intermittent short periods. Reported durations of exposure to WBV were generally accurate (median ratio of reported to observed time 1.1, IQR 1.0-1.2).
Sources of recent occupational exposure to vibration seem to be reported with reasonable accuracy, but durations of exposure to HTV are systematically overestimated, particularly when the exposure is intermittent and for short periods. This raises the possibility that dose-response relations may have been biased in some of the studies on which exposure standards might be based, and that the levels in currently proposed standards may be too high. Future studies should pay attention to this source of error during data collection.
评估工人报告其手部传播振动(HTV)和全身振动(WBV)职业暴露情况的准确性。
179名从事涉及HTV或WBV暴露的各种工作的工人完成了一份关于过去一周职业振动暴露源的自填式问卷。然后对他们进行1小时的工作观察,之后他们完成了第二份关于该观察期内暴露情况的问卷。通过询问管理人员以及检查工作场所的工具和机器,检验过去一周报告的暴露源的可行性。相对于观察到的情况,评估1小时期间报告的暴露源和暴露时长的准确性。
报告暴露于HTV的受试者中97%以及报告暴露于WBV的受试者中93%,其前一周暴露的可行性得到证实。报告的个体暴露源总体上似乎合理,但汽车的职业使用被大量高估,可能是因为与上下班途中的使用混淆。观察期内报告的暴露情况的准确性总体较高,但一些HTV源被混淆了——例如,将钉枪和订书机报告为铆接锤,而锤钻未与其他类型的钻头区分开来。工人将其HTV暴露时长高估了中位数2.5倍(四分位间距(IQR)为1.6 - 5.9),但当暴露相对连续而非间歇性短时间暴露时,估计的暴露时长更准确。报告的WBV暴露时长总体准确(报告时间与观察时间的中位数比值为1.1,IQR为1.0 - 1.2)。
近期职业振动暴露源的报告似乎具有合理的准确性,但HTV的暴露时长被系统性高估,尤其是当暴露是间歇性且短时间的时候。这增加了以下可能性:一些可能作为暴露标准依据的研究中的剂量反应关系可能存在偏差,并且当前提议标准中的水平可能过高。未来的研究在数据收集期间应关注这一误差来源。