Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Wet work exposure: comparison of observed and self-reported data
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Wet work exposure: comparison of observed and self-reported data
Do you wish to request the book?
Wet work exposure: comparison of observed and self-reported data
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Wet work exposure: comparison of observed and self-reported data
2019
Overview
PurposeWet work is the most important exposure leading to occupational hand eczema; however, the prevalence and character of wet work in various wet work professions remain not fully covered. Self-reported data are widely used in studies of wet work although the validity of these remains uncertain. The objective of the present study is to provide information on validity of self-reported wet work exposure in different professions by comparing work place observations with self-reported data.Methods114 workers from 15 various wet work professions were observed. The observations covered duration and frequency of wet work activities. The observed population as well as a non-observed population from each work place were given a questionnaire covering the same wet work activities.ResultsCorrespondence analysis between self-reported and observed wet work showed that misclassification was larger regarding duration than frequency. 29.2% overestimated and 23.9% underestimated total wet work with more than 2 h/day. Professions with high wet work prevalence overestimated duration of wet work activities, but underestimated frequency. Females overestimated frequency, but not duration. The observed group (45%) significantly more often, than the non-observed group (32%), reported having more than 2 h of wet work/day (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6–4.9). Sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaire regarding total wet work in the observed population showed 51% sensitivity and 59% specificity.ConclusionOver- and underestimation of wet work were found to be equally distributed. The correspondence analyses illustrate a noticeable misclassification between the estimations and the observations on all wet work variables, but largest for total wet work.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
