Fletcher A C, Engholm G, Englund A
Department of Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22 Suppl 2:S29-35. doi: 10.1093/ije/22.supplement_2.s29.
A total of 719 lung cancers were identified in a follow-up of 135,000 Swedish construction workers interviewed during 1971-1974 by occupational health nurses as part of a routine health check-up. These were analysed in a matched case-control study nested within this cohort, to compare different methods of characterizing exposure to asbestos. Self-reported exposure was contrasted with a job exposure matrix (JEM) of five levels of exposure intensity, applied to the job at the time of health check-up. Smoking adjusted odds ratios were computed and the JEM performed better than self-reported exposure, in being able to discriminate high risk subgroups. The same pattern was evident in a parallel analysis of 41 mesotheliomas. However both measures appeared subject to misclassification, and the question put seemed to pick up the use of asbestos cement products more effectively than asbestos insulation products. It is concluded that a simple JEM can be more reliable than a simple question, but that both should be much more detailed, to take account of different types of asbestos exposure and their variation over time.
在1971年至1974年期间,职业健康护士对135,000名瑞典建筑工人进行了访谈,作为常规健康检查的一部分。在随访中,共发现719例肺癌。在该队列中进行了一项匹配病例对照研究,以比较表征石棉暴露的不同方法。将自我报告的暴露情况与一个分为五个暴露强度等级的工作暴露矩阵(JEM)进行对比,该矩阵应用于健康检查时的工作。计算了调整吸烟因素后的比值比,结果显示JEM在区分高风险亚组方面比自我报告的暴露情况表现更好。在对41例间皮瘤的平行分析中也出现了相同的模式。然而,这两种测量方法似乎都存在错误分类的情况,而且所提问题似乎比石棉绝缘产品更能有效地反映石棉水泥产品的使用情况。得出的结论是,一个简单的JEM可能比一个简单的问题更可靠,但两者都应该更加详细,以考虑到不同类型的石棉暴露及其随时间的变化。