Assessmrneinifc Somnie Eflpattiioinis to Evaluate DSffereimtt Strategies

'Basically, two strategies can be considered for the analysis of hazardous pollutants in the work environment: group-based and individual-based strategies. This paper provides existing and recently derived equations for both strategies describing the influence of several factors on attenuation and on the standard error of an estimated linear regression coefficient relating a continuous exposure variable and a continuous health outcome via a simple linear regression model. We applied these equations using exposure variability information from industry-wide surveys over the past decade in order to gain more insight into the effects of various sources of exposure variability on choices among different analysis strategies. In general, for the modeling scenario considered here, there is not a straightforward criterion for choosing an optimal analysis strategy. Researchers have to decide between individual-based strategies generating precise, though biased, estimates or group-based strategies generating less precise but essentially unbiased estimates. For most exposure variability scenarios evaluated, an individual-ba sed strategy yielded substantial attenuation. It is the authors' contention that the choice between individual-based and group-based strategies should be based on validity, rather than on precision, of the estimated exposure-response coefficient! © 1998 British Occupational Hygiene Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

[1]  H Kromhout,et al.  Wood-dust exposure during wood-working processes. , 1995, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[2]  Hans Kromhout,et al.  Estimates of individual dose from current measurements of exposure. , 1996 .

[3]  H. Kromhout,et al.  Occupational epidemiology in the rubber industry: implications of exposure variability. , 1995, American journal of industrial medicine.

[4]  M. Singer,et al.  Nutritional Epidemiology , 2020, Definitions.

[5]  B. Brunekreef,et al.  Variability of exposure measurements in environmental epidemiology. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  T. Smid,et al.  Exposure to dust, endotoxins, and fungi in the animal feed industry. , 1992, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[7]  James Durbin,et al.  Errors in variables , 1954 .

[8]  J. Wal,et al.  Dust control measures in Dutch brickworks. , 1990 .

[9]  Bruce K. Armstrong,et al.  Principles of Exposure Measurement in Epidemiology , 1992 .

[10]  H Kromhout,et al.  Individual-based and group-based occupational exposure assessment: some equations to evaluate different strategies. , 1998, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[11]  H Kromhout,et al.  Grouping strategies for exposure to inhalable dust, wheat allergens and alpha-amylase allergens in bakeries. , 1997, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[12]  Wayne A. Fuller,et al.  Measurement Error Models , 1988 .

[13]  J. V. van Hemmen,et al.  Exposure to styrene and health complaints in the Dutch glass-reinforced plastics industry. , 1992, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[14]  B G Armstrong,et al.  The effects of measurement errors on relative risk regressions. , 1990, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  Hans Kromhout,et al.  Use and analysis of exposure monitoring data in occupational epidemiology: an example of an epidemiological study in the Dutch animal food industry. , 1991 .

[16]  P Swuste,et al.  Empirical modelling of chemical exposure in the rubber-manufacturing industry. , 1994, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[17]  L L Kupper,et al.  Effects of the use of unreliable surrogate variables on the validity of epidemiologic research studies. , 1984, American journal of epidemiology.