Schade W J, Swanson G M
Division of Epidemiology, Michigan Cancer Foundation, Detroit.
Am J Ind Med. 1988;14(2):121-36. doi: 10.1002/ajim.4700140203.
This study compares usual and recent occupation and industry data from lifetime work histories obtained by interview with death certificate entries for occupation and industry for 2,435 persons diagnosed with cancer. Match rates are calculated as the percent of death certificate occupation and industry entries that were confirmed by interview data and are compared for exact 3-digit 1980 U.S. Census Bureau occupation and industry codes and for groups of these codes. The overall match rate for individual usual occupation codes was 47.9% and for exact usual industry codes it was 61.8%. Significant differences between the interview data for usual occupation or industry and the death certificate entry were observed by race and gender, marital status, number of years worked, and occupation and industry groups and by age for industry. Misclassification or overreporting of occupation and industry data on the death certificate ranged from 30 to 50% in this study. Our results suggest that the utility of death certificate data for investigations into the occupational risk factors for cancer may be quite limited.
本研究比较了通过访谈获得的2435名癌症患者终生工作经历中的既往职业和行业数据,以及死亡证明上的职业和行业信息。匹配率计算为访谈数据确认的死亡证明职业和行业记录的百分比,并针对1980年美国人口普查局的三位数字职业和行业代码及其分组进行比较。个人既往职业代码的总体匹配率为47.9%,确切既往行业代码的总体匹配率为61.8%。按种族和性别、婚姻状况、工作年限、职业和行业分组以及行业的年龄来看,既往职业或行业的访谈数据与死亡证明记录之间存在显著差异。在本研究中,死亡证明上职业和行业数据的错误分类或过度报告率在30%至50%之间。我们的结果表明,死亡证明数据用于调查癌症职业风险因素的效用可能相当有限。