ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Assigning exposure to pesticides and solvents from self-reports collected by a computer assisted personal interview and expert assessment of job codes: the UK Adult Brain Tumour Study

S J Hepworth¹, A Bolton², R C Parslow¹, M van Tongeren², K R Muir³, P A McKinney¹

¹ Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
² Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Division of Epidemiology & Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
³ Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Miss S J Hepworth
Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics, 30 Hyde Terrace, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9LN, UK; s.j.hepworth{at}leeds.ac.uk

Objectives: To compare assignment of occupational pesticide and solvent exposure using self-reported data collected by a computer assisted personal interview (CAPI) with exposure based on expert assessment of job codes. To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a CAPI to collect individual occupational exposure data.

Methods: Between 2001 and 2004, 1495 participants were interviewed using a CAPI for a case-control study of adult brain tumours and acoustic neuromas. Two types of occupational data were collected: (1) a full history, including job title from which a job code was assigned from the Standard Occupational Classification; and (2) specific details on pesticide and solvent exposure reported by participants. Study members’ experiences of using the CAPI were recorded and advantages and disadvantages summarised.

Results: Of 7192 jobs recorded, the prevalence of self-reported exposure was 1.3% for pesticides and 11.5% for solvents. Comparing this with exposure expertly assessed from job titles showed 53.6% and 45.8% concordance for pesticides and solvents respectively. Advantages of the CAPI include no data entry stage, automatic input validation, and a reduction in interviewer bias. Disadvantages include an adverse effect on study implementation as a consequence of resources required for programming and difficulties encountered with data management prior to analysis.

Conclusions: Different methods of exposure assessment derive different exposure levels for pesticide and solvent exposure at work. Agreement between self-reported and expert assessment of exposure was greater for pesticides compared to solvents. The advantages of using a CAPI for the collection of complex data outweigh the disadvantages for interviewers and data quality but using such a method requires extra resources at the study outset.

Keywords: computer assisted personal interview; occupation; interviewing

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Mee, T, Whatmough, P, Broad, L, Dunn, C, Maslanyj, M, Allen, S, Muir, K, McKinney, P A, van Tongeren, M (2009). Occupational exposure of UK adults to extremely low frequency magnetic fields. Occup. Environ. Med. 66: 619-627 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• McKinney, P. A., Raji, O. Y., van Tongeren, M., Feltbower, R. G. (2008). The UK Childhood Cancer Study: maternal occupational exposures and childhood leukaemia and lymphoma. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 132: 232-240 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Samanic, C. M., De Roos, A. J., Stewart, P. A., Rajaraman, P., Waters, M. A., Inskip, P. D. (2008). Occupational Exposure to Pesticides and Risk of Adult Brain Tumors. Am J Epidemiol 167: 976-985 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Parks, C G, Cooper, G S (2006). Occupational exposures and risk of systemic lupus erythematosus: a review of the evidence and exposure assessment methods in population-and clinic-based studies. Lupus 15: 728-736 [Abstract]