The 2-phase case–control design: an efficient way to use expert-time

Wild, Pascal; Schill, Walter; Bourgkard, Ève; Drescher, Karsten; Gonzalez, Maria; Paris, Christophe

doi:10.5271/sjweh.3547

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other recent strategies that combines individual job-by-job assessment and the group-based assignment of JEMs in population studies include predefined decision rules [10] and evaluations restricted to a sub-sample of all jobs [24]. Among those, the hybrid approach leans closer to the traditional expert method as it involves the review of each job description, although guided by past data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid expert approach for retrospective assessment of occupational exposures in a population-based case-control study of cancer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background While the expert-based occupational exposure assessment approach has been considered the reference method for retrospective population-based studies, its implementation in large study samples has become prohibitive. To facilitate its application and improve upon it we developed, in the context of a Montreal population-based study of prostate cancer (PROtEuS), a hybrid approach combining job-exposure profiles (JEPs) summarizing expert evaluations from previous studies and expert review. We aim to describe the hybrid expert method and its impacts on the exposures assigned in PROtEuS compared to those from a previous study coded using the traditional expert method. Methods Applying the hybrid approach, experts evaluated semi-quantitative levels of confidence, concentration and frequency of exposure to 313 agents for 16,065 jobs held by 4005 subjects in PROtEuS. These assessments were compared to those from a different set of jobs coded in an earlier study of lung cancer, conducted on the same study base, for 90 blue-collar occupations and 203 agents. Endpoints evaluated included differences in the number of exposures and in the distribution of ratings across jobs, and the within-occupation variability in exposure. Results Compared to jobs from the lung cancer study, jobs in PROtEuS had on average 0.3 more exposures. PROtEuS exposures were more often assigned definite confidence ratings, but concentration and frequency levels tended to be lower. The within-occupation variability in ratings assigned to jobs were lower in PROtEuS jobs for all metrics. This was particularly evident for concentration, although considerable variability remained with over 40% of occupation/agent cells in PROtEuS exposed at different levels. The hybrid approach reduced coding time by half, compared to the traditional expert assessment. Conclusions The new hybrid expert approach improved on efficiency and transparency, and resulted in greater confidence in assessments, compared to the traditional expert method applied in an earlier study involving a similar set of jobs. Assigned ratings were more homogeneous with the hybrid approach, possibly reflecting clearer guidelines for coding, greater coherence between experts and/or reliance on summaries of past assessments. Nevertheless, significant within-occupation variability remained with the hybrid approach, suggesting that experts took into account job-specific factors in their assessments. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12940-019-0451-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid expert approach for retrospective assessment of occupational exposures in a population-based case-control study of cancer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although expert assessment of occupational exposure is often criticized, it continues to be considered the method of reference for observational studies (Bourgkard et al, 2013;Burstyn et al, 2014;Hunt et al, 2015;Wild et al, 2016). The better the expert and the greater the quantity and quality of data, the better the assessment will be (White et al, 2008).…”

Section: Intermethods Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualitative and Semiquantitative Assessment of Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials within the French EpiNano Program: Inter- and Intramethod Reliability Study

Canu

Jezewski-Serra

Delabre

et al. 2017

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relatively recent development of industries working with nanomaterials has created challenges for exposure assessment. In this article, we propose a relatively simple approach to assessing nanomaterial exposures for the purposes of epidemiological studies of workers in these industries. This method consists of an onsite industrial hygiene visit of facilities carried out individually and a description of workstations where nano-objects and their agglomerates and aggregates (NOAA) are present using a standardized tool, the Onsite technical logbook. To assess its reliability, we implemented this approach for assessing exposure to NOAA in workplaces at seven workstations which synthesize and functionalize carbon nanotubes. The prediction of exposure to NOAA using this method exhibited substantial agreement with that of the reference method, the latter being based on an onsite group visit, an expert's report and exposure measurements (Cohen kappa = 0.70, sensitivity = 0.88, specificity = 0.92). Intramethod comparison of results for exposure prediction showed moderate agreement between the three evaluators (two program team evaluators and one external evaluator) (weighted Fleiss kappa = 0.60, P = 0.003). Interevaluator reliability of the semiquantitative exposure characterization results was excellent between the two evaluators from the program team (Spearman rho = 0.93, P = 0.03) and fair when these two evaluators' results were compared with the external evaluator's results. The project was undertaken within the framework of the French epidemiological surveillance program EpiNano. This study allowed a first reliability assessment of the EpiNano method. However, to further validate this method a comparison with robust quantitative exposure measurement data is necessary.

show abstract

Using Decision Rules to Assess Occupational Exposure in Population-Based Studies

Sauvé

Friesen

2019

Curr Envir Health Rpt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2-phase case–control design: an efficient way to use expert-time

Abstract: The 2PCC design may be the design of choice when resources allow only a limited number of subjects with a full expert-based exposure assessment.

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

A hybrid expert approach for retrospective assessment of occupational exposures in a population-based case-control study of cancer

A hybrid expert approach for retrospective assessment of occupational exposures in a population-based case-control study of cancer

Qualitative and Semiquantitative Assessment of Exposure to Engineered Nanomaterials within the French EpiNano Program: Inter- and Intramethod Reliability Study

Using Decision Rules to Assess Occupational Exposure in Population-Based Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About