Use and Reliability of Exposure Assessment Methods in Occupational Case–Control Studies in the General Population: Past, Present, and Future

Abstract

Introduction

Retrospective occupational exposure assessment has been challenging in case–control studies in the general population. We aimed to review (i) trends of different assessment methods used in the last 40 years and (ii) evidence of reliability for various assessment methods.

Methods

Two separate literature reviews were conducted. We first reviewed all general population cancer case–control studies published from 1975 to 2016 to summarize the exposure assessment approach used. For the second review, we systematically reviewed evidence of reliability for all methods observed in the first review.

Results

Among the 299 studies included in the first review, the most frequently used assessment methods were self-report/assessment (n = 143 studies), case-by-case expert assessment (n = 139), and job-exposure matrices (JEMs; n = 82). Usage trends for these methods remained relatively stable throughout the last four decades. Other approaches, such as the application of algorithms linking questionnaire responses to expert-assigned exposure estimates and modelling of exposure with historical measurement data, appeared in 21 studies that were published after 2000. The second review retrieved 34 comparison studies examining methodological reliability. Overall, we observed slightly higher median kappa agreement between exposure estimates from different expert assessors (~0.6) than between expert estimates and exposure estimates from self-reports (~0.5) or JEMs (~0.4). However, reported reliability measures were highly variable for different methods and agents. Limited evidence also indicates newer methods, such as assessment using algorithms and measurement-calibrated quantitative JEMs, may be as reliable as traditional methods.

Conclusion

The majority of current research assesses exposures in the population with similar methods as studies did decades ago. Though there is evidence for the development of newer approaches, more concerted effort is needed to better adopt exposure assessment methods with more transparency, reliability, and efficiency.