Sir

9504688

8741

J Occup Environ Med

J. Occup. Environ. Med.

Journal of occupational and environmental medicine

1076-27521536-5948

31233006

6731135

10.1097/JOM.0000000000001654

HHSPA1531835

Article

Comparison between a self-reported job exposure matrix (JEM CONSTANCES) to an expertise-based job exposure matrix (MADE) for biomechanical exposures

DESCATHA

ALEXIS

MD*Univ Angers, CHU Angers, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, F-49000 Angers, France; Occupational Health Unit U1168 UMS011, Paris Hospital, Versailles University, Poincaré site, F92380 Garches, FranceEVANOFF

BRADLEY A.

MDDivision of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, USAANDERSEN

JOHAN H.

MDOccupational Medicine, University Research Clinic, Herning, DenmarkBACA

MATTHEW

MScDivision of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, USABUCKNER-PETTY

SKYE

MPHDivision of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, USAFADEL

MARC

MDresidentOccupational Health Unit U1168 UMS011, Paris Hospital, Versailles University, Poincaré site, F92380 Garches, FranceNGABIRANO

LAURE

MPHUniv Angers, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, F-49000 Angers, France; U1168, Inserm, Villejuif, FranceROQUELAURE

YVES

MDUniv Angers, CHU Angers, Univ Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail) - UMR_S 1085, F-49000 Angers,MARIE DALE

ANN

PhDDivision of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, USA

*Corresponding author: alexis.descatha@inserm.fr Tel: + 33147107764 Fax + 33147107768

1762019

92019

0192020

619e399e400

Sir

Job exposure matrices are becoming more and more widely used,(1) including use for estimation of biomechanical exposures.(2) In the context of providing exposure data available for international research, an international team created an employment exposure matrix from the first available data from the Constances cohort, called “JEM Constances”.(3) As part of ongoing efforts to compare different JEMs,(4) we compared similar exposure variables from JEM Constances to those assigned in a JEM used for public health purposes in the same country, the French “MADE” (“Matrice Associant Difficultés physiques au travail et Emploi”, French for “difficult physical conditions and job matrix”).(5,6) We studied the correlation and the agreement of exposure estimates for different job titles between these two matrices.

Briefly, the Constances cohort created a JEM based on self-reported exposures to 27 different biomechanical factors at the level of the job, using the French “PCS 2003” national job codes.(3) The MADE matrix coded 17 different exposures using consensus estimates from occupational health experts, using the same PCS codes.(5) The relevant variables were crossed to obtain Spearman correlation coefficients for JEM Constances and MADE, using the PCS2003 code as a unit and using the subject by applying the two matrices on available data on Constances cohort. Three categories for variables of both JEM Constances and MADE were also obtained based on the tertiles of the distribution using Constances cohort. Thus, a calculation of a Kappa agreement was also performed with similar units.

The results on the selected variables are fairly good (Table 1) except for exposures to the neck and to work in cold environment (<10°C), where some coefficients were lower than 0.5.

These results confirm that a matrix based on a self-reported assessment exposure matrix and one based on expert estimates of exposure provide similar overall results. Although the statistical analyses were simple, using only an overall evaluation of correlation and agreement between the two approaches, the demonstration of broadly similar results using two different exposure methods may aid the comparison of studies using different exposure methods.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by research funding from the American National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH R01OH011076). The French CONSTANCES Cohort is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-INBS-0002), Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des travailleurs salariés-CNAMTS, and is funded by the Institut de Recherche en Santé Publique/Institut Thématique Santé Publique, and the following sponsors: Ministère de la santé et des sports, Ministère délégué à la recherche, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, Institut national du cancer et Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie, as well as Institute for research in public health (IReSP, CapaciT project).

Conflict of interest. None, authors are paid by their institutions (and AD is editor in chief of Archives des maladies professionnelles et de l’environnement).

All authors have participated significantly.

References1.

Siemiatycki

, Lavoué

. Availability of a New Job-Exposure Matrix (CANJEM) for Epidemiologic and Occupational Medicine Purposes. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018 7;60(7):e324–8.29642096

Evanoff

, Zeringue

, Franzblau

, Dale

. Using job-title-based physical exposures from O*NET in an epidemiological study of carpal tunnel syndrome. Hum. Factors. 2014 2;56(1):166–77.24669551

Evanoff

, Yung

, Buckner-Petty

, Roquelaure

., Descatha

, Dale

. The CONSTANCES Job Exposure Matrix Based on Self-Reported Exposure to Physical Risk Factors: Development & Evaluation. Occup EnvironMed. 2019 6;76(6):398–406

Evanoff

, Yung

, Buckner-Petty

, Roquelaure

., Descatha

, Dale

. Cross-National Comparison of Two General Population Job Exposure Matrices for Physical Work Exposures. Occup EnvironMed. 2019;in press.

Descatha

, Despréaux

, Petit

, Bodin

, Andersen

, Dale

A-M

, [Development of a French Job exposure matrix “MADE” for biomechanical exposure evaluation]. Santé Publique. 2018;30(3):333–7.30541262

Kerbrat

, Descatha

. [The recognition of health consequences of difficult working conditions in France and its evaluation with the use of a job-exposure matrix]. Arch. Mal. Prof. Environ. 2018 9 1;79(4):493–500.

Table 1.

Correlation and agreement between JEM-Constances (Self-report assessed in Constances Cohort) and MADE (expert based matrix)

Variables JEM Constances	Variables MADE	Spearman Rhos, job code as units	Spearman Rhos, subject as unit	Kappas, job code as unit	Kappas, subject as unit
Physical intensity	Effort	0.84	0.69	0.79	0.66
	Very heavy lifting	0.80	0.68	0.75	0.67
	Static strength	0.87	0.84	0.82	0.83
	Heavy lifting	0.85	0.79	0.82	0.78
	Dynamic strength	0.85	0.78	0.81	0.77
Working with repetition	Repetition	0.73	0.73	0.66	0.73
Kneeling or squatting	Kneeling or squatting	0.72	0.63	0.65	0.55
	Very heavy lifting	0.72	0.63	0.65	0.55
	Heavy lifting	0.78	0.75	0.72	0.67
Carry loads 10-25 kg	Very heavy lifting	0.81	0.71	0.74	0.76
	Heavy lifting	0.55	0.83	0.74	0.87
Carry loads > 25 kg	Very heavy lifting	0.81	0.72	0.77	0.71
	Heavy lifting	0.85	0.82	0.82	0.81
Using vibrating tool	Vibrating tool use	0.79	0.62	0.70	0.63
Using computer screen	Computer use	0.86	0.87	0.78	0.79
Using keyboard or scanner	Computer use	0.85	0.88	0.78	0.78
Bending neck	Cervical constraints	0.51	0.30	0.45	0.31
Working with arms above shoulder	Shoulder abducted >90°	0.74	0.53	0.70	0.54
Working with arms abducted	Shoulder abducted >90°	0.81	0.72	0.76	0.77
Bending elbow	Elbow contraints	0.85	0.69	0.80	0.72
Rotating forearm	Turn the hand (e.g. screwing)	0.84	0.76	0.77	0.70
	Press base of hand	0.81	0.69	0.77	0.68
	Grip	0.82	0.69	0.71	0.65
Bending wrist	Turn the hand (e.g. screwing)	0.86	0.75	0.78	0.73
	Press base of hand	0.83	0.69	0.77	0.72
	Grip	0.84	0.72	0.71	0.69
Pressing base of hand	Turn the hand (e.g. screwing)	0.79	0.61	0.72	0.54
	Press base of hand	0.79	0.52	0.72	0.47
	Grip	0.80	0.65	0.68	0.52
Finger pinching	Turn the hand (e.g. screwing)	0.80	0.72	0.74	0.66
	Press base of hand	0.76	0.63	0.72	0.56
	Grip	0.76	0.53	0.64	0.46
Working outdoors	Work in cold environment (<10°C)	0.55	0.50	0.49	0.50