Evaluation of two-year recall of self-reported pesticide exposure among Ugandan smallholder farmers

Mueller, Will; Atuhaire, Aggrey; Mubeezi, Ruth; Brenk, Iris van den; Kromhout, Hans; Basinas, Ioannis; Jones, Kate; Povey, Andrew C.; Tongeren, Martie van; Harding, Anne-Helen; Galea, Karen S.; Fuhrimann, Samuel

doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113911

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…age, education, experience), with the exception of more inflated estimates of hours among females (albeit based on a small sample size). Most studies have not examined the potential influence of these attributes in the reporting of frequency of pesticide use, though our results agree with Mueller et al (under review ), who also did not find any such differences in recall among Ugandan smallholder farmers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…One might expect that recall ability may be hindered by a larger number of crops on which pesticides were applied, but we found weak negative correlations only in the PUHS study, meaning the overall number of crops had little impact on recall for a given crop. The agreement of specific crops in the present study is better than that observed in a tropical context, where there are often numerous crops and multiple harvesting periods, contributing to greater challenges in accurate recollection ( Mueller et al , under review ).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…Other studies with much shorter recall periods have also found at least moderate correlations for reported number of years, showing better agreement than for reported number of days ( Lee et al , 2010 ; Mueller et al , under review ) or hours ( Blair et al ., 2002 ; Lee et al , 2010 ; Mueller et al , under review ). In our study, we also found moderate to strong correlations in recalled days mixing and applying pesticides per year, with no suggestion of bias in under- or over-reporting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“… Garrigou et al ., 2020 ), and much higher than those used in low and middle income (LMIC) settings (e.g. Chitra et al ., 2006 ; Lekei et al ., 2014 ; Mueller et al , under review ). However, responders in two of the cohorts (PUHS, SHAW) represented a higher proportion of more educated individuals, who may be more likely to wear PPE ( Sapbamrer and Thammachai, 2020 ); thus, their PPE use might have differed from the group of non-responders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we describe the recall of pesticide exposure determinants over a range of time frames in three UK cohorts (the current Prospective Investigation of Pesticide Applicators’ Health [PIPAH; Harding et al , 2017 ] cohort, and two historical cohorts—the Pesticide Users’ Health Study [PUHS; Frost et al , 2011 ; Holmes, 2011 ] and the Study of Health in Agricultural Work [SHAW; Povey et al , 2014 ]). Mueller et al (under review ) describe a similar assessment on the recall of farmers’ pesticide use in a low-income country in the Pesticide Use in Tropical Settings (PESTROP) cohort ( Staudacher et al , 2020 ) that was also undertaken within the remit of the IMPRESS project.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Recall of exposure in UK farmers and pesticide applicators: trends with follow-up time

Mueller

Jones

Mohamed

et al. 2022

Annals of Work Exposures and Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Occupational epidemiological studies on pesticide use commonly rely on self-reported questionnaire or interview data to assess exposure. Insight into recall accuracy is important, as misclassification of exposures due to imperfect recall can bias risk estimates. Methods We assessed the ability of workers in three UK cohorts (Prospective Investigation of Pesticide Applicators’ Health [PIPAH], Pesticide Users’ Health Study [PUHS], and Study of Health in Agricultural Work [SHAW]) to remember their working history related to pesticide exposure over time periods ranging from 3 to 14 years prior. During 2019–2020, cohort participants were re-surveyed using a similar questionnaire to that used previously. We compared recall of responses at follow-up to those reported at baseline related to crops/areas of work, use of personal protective equipment (PPE) items, hygiene habits, frequency of pesticide use, and application method. To assess the extent of recall, we used sensitivity, specificity, the percentage of overall agreement, and area under the curve (AUC) values. We also examined the presence of over or underestimation of recalled years, and days and hours per year, of working with pesticides using geometric mean ratios (GMR) and regression analysis to investigate any trends based on demographic characteristics. Results There were 643 individuals who completed both the baseline and follow-up surveys in the three cohorts with response rates ranging from 17 to 46%. There was a strong correlation (rho = 0.77) between the baseline and recalled years working with pesticides, though higher values were reported at follow-up (GMR = 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.07–1.30]) with no consistent differences by demographic characteristics. There was stronger agreement in the recalled days compared to hours per year in two of the cohorts. Recall for a number of exposure determinants across short and longer periods entailed overall agreement of >70%, though with some differences: for example, sensitivity for long-term recall of crops was poor (<43% in PUHS), whereas short-term recall of hygiene practices was good (AUC range = 0.65–1.00 in PIPAH). Conclusion Results indicate that recall ability may deteriorate over a longer period. Although low-response rates may require these findings to be interpreted with caution, recall for a number of exposure determinants appeared reliable, such as crops and hygiene practices within 3 years, as well as days per year working with pesticides.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%