Objectives
Professional judgment is necessary to assess occupational exposure in population-based case-control studies; however, the assessments lack transparency and are time-consuming to perform. To improve transparency and efficiency, we systematically applied decision rules to the questionnaire responses to assess diesel exhaust exposure in the New England Bladder Cancer Study, a population-based case-control study.
Methods
2,631 participants reported 14,983 jobs; 2,749 jobs were administered questionnaires (‘modules’) with diesel-relevant questions. We applied decision rules to assign exposure metrics based solely on the occupational history responses (OH estimates) and based on the module responses (module estimates); we combined the separate OH and module estimates (OH/module estimates). Each job was also reviewed one at a time to assign exposure (one-by-one review estimates). We evaluated the agreement between the OH, OH/module, and one-by-one review estimates.
Results
The proportion of exposed jobs was 20–25% for all jobs, depending on approach, and 54–60% for jobs with diesel-relevant modules. The OH/module and one-by-one review had moderately high agreement for all jobs (κw=0.68–0.81) and for jobs with diesel-relevant modules (κw=0.62–0.78) for the probability, intensity, and frequency metrics. For exposed subjects, the Spearman correlation statistic was 0.72 between the cumulative OH/module and one-by-one review estimates.
Conclusions
The agreement seen here may represent an upper level of agreement because the algorithm and one-by-one review estimates were not fully independent. This study shows that applying decision-based rules can reproduce a one-by-one review, increase transparency and efficiency, and provide a mechanism to replicate exposure decisions in other studies.