Holmes E, Garshick E
Department of Environmental Science and Physiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
J Occup Med. 1991 Feb;33(2):134-8.
The reproducibility of self-reported exposure to asbestos and dust was examined in 116 male veterans who completed an initial mail survey and subsequent occupational clinic questionnaire a mean of 213 +/- 68 days later. For the 114 subjects who answered the asbestos question of the mail survey, 68 (60%) gave concordant replies, while 46 (40%) gave discordant answers later in the clinic. Of 51 subjects who answered yes to asbestos exposure in the clinic, 11 (22%) had answered no and 13 (26%) had answered not sure. Failure to note asbestos exposure could not be blamed exclusively on past, relatively low-level of exposure because many of the respondents had significant exposure histories. For dust exposure, 31 (29%) had discordant replies and 77 (71%) had concordant answers. Self-reported history of occupational exposure to asbestos and dust were not as reproducible as the smoking history and may be underreported when mail survey methods alone are used.
在116名男性退伍军人中，研究了自我报告的石棉和粉尘暴露情况的可重复性。这些退伍军人完成了一份初始邮件调查问卷，平均213±68天后又完成了一份职业诊所调查问卷。在回答邮件调查问卷中石棉问题的114名受试者中，68人（60%）给出了一致的回答，而46人（40%）后来在诊所给出了不一致的答案。在诊所中回答石棉暴露问题为“是”的51名受试者中，11人（22%）之前回答为“否”，13人（26%）之前回答为“不确定”。未能记录石棉暴露不能完全归咎于过去相对较低水平的暴露，因为许多受访者有显著的暴露史。对于粉尘暴露，31人（29%）给出了不一致的回答，77人（71%）给出了一致的回答。自我报告的职业性石棉和粉尘暴露史不如吸烟史那样具有可重复性，仅使用邮件调查方法时可能会少报。
