IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v12y2015i4p3889-3902d47844.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Job Exposure Matrix for Electric Shock Risks with Their Uncertainties

Author

Listed:
  • Ximena P. Vergara

    (Electric Power Research Institute, Environment Sector, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA)

  • Heidi J. Fischer

    (UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Michael Yost

    (Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Michael Silva

    (Enertech Consultants, Campbell, CA 95008, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • David A. Lombardi

    (Center for Injury Epidemiology, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA 07418, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Leeka Kheifets

    (UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA)

Abstract

We present an update to an electric shock job exposure matrix (JEM) that assigned ordinal electric shocks exposure for 501 occupational titles based on electric shocks and electrocutions from two available data sources and expert judgment. Using formal expert elicitation and starting with data on electric injury, we arrive at a consensus-based JEM. In our new JEM, we quantify exposures by adding three new dimensions: (1) the elicited median proportion; (2) the elicited 25th percentile; and (3) and the elicited 75th percentile of those experiencing occupational electric shocks in a working lifetime. We construct the relative interquartile range (rIQR) based on uncertainty interval and the median. Finally, we describe overall results, highlight examples demonstrating the impact of cut point selection on exposure assignment, and evaluate potential impacts of such selection on epidemiologic studies of the electric work environment. In conclusion, novel methods allowed for consistent exposure estimates that move from qualitative to quantitative measures in this population-based JEM. Overlapping ranges of median exposure in various categories reflect our limited knowledge about this exposure.

Suggested Citation

  • Ximena P. Vergara & Heidi J. Fischer & Michael Yost & Michael Silva & David A. Lombardi & Leeka Kheifets, 2015. "Job Exposure Matrix for Electric Shock Risks with Their Uncertainties," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:4:p:3889-3902:d:47844
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/4/3889/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/4/3889/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence C. McCandless & Sylvia Richardson & Nicky Best, 2012. "Adjustment for Missing Confounders Using External Validation Data and Propensity Scores," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(497), pages 40-51, March.
    2. Julian P. T. Higgins & Simon G. Thompson & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2009. "A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 137-159, January.
    3. Douglas E. Schaubel & Guanghui Wei, 2011. "Double Inverse-Weighted Estimation of Cumulative Treatment Effects Under Nonproportional Hazards and Dependent Censoring," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(1), pages 29-38, March.
    4. Carlos Díaz-Venegas, 2014. "Identifying the Confounders of Marginalization and Mortality in Mexico, 2003–2007," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 851-875, September.
    5. A. Goubar & A. E. Ades & D. De Angelis & C. A. McGarrigle & C. H. Mercer & P. A. Tookey & K. Fenton & O. N. Gill, 2008. "Estimates of human immunodeficiency virus prevalence and proportion diagnosed based on Bayesian multiparameter synthesis of surveillance data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(3), pages 541-580, June.
    6. McCandless Lawrence C., 2012. "Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies with Unmeasured Confounders," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-31, January.
    7. Maria Gheorghe & Susan Picavet & Monique Verschuren & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Pieter H. M. Baal, 2017. "Health losses at the end of life: a Bayesian mixed beta regression approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(3), pages 723-749, June.
    8. K. M. Rhodes & J. Savović & R. Elbers & H. E. Jones & J. P. T. Higgins & J. A. C. Sterne & N. J. Welton & R. M. Turner, 2020. "Adjusting trial results for biases in meta‐analysis: combining data‐based evidence on bias with detailed trial assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(1), pages 193-209, January.
    9. Andrew Gelman & Christian Hennig, 2017. "Beyond subjective and objective in statistics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 967-1033, October.
    10. Rebecca M. Turner & David J. Spiegelhalter & Gordon C. S. Smith & Simon G. Thompson, 2009. "Bias modelling in evidence synthesis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 21-47, January.
    11. S. Dias & N. J. Welton & V. C. C. Marinho & G. Salanti & J. P. T. Higgins & A. E. Ades, 2010. "Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(3), pages 613-629, July.
    12. Qi Zhou & Yoo-Mi Chin & James D. Stamey & Joon Jin Song, 2020. "Bayesian sensitivity analysis to unmeasured confounding for misclassified data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 104(4), pages 577-596, December.
    13. de Luna, Xavier & Lundin, Mathias, 2009. "Sensitivity analysis of the unconfoundedness assumption in observational studies," Working Paper Series 2009:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    14. Leah Comment & Brent A. Coull & Corwin Zigler & Linda Valeri, 2022. "Bayesian data fusion: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding using informative priors based on secondary data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 730-741, June.
    15. N. J. Welton & A. E. Ades & J. B. Carlin & D. G. Altman & J. A. C. Sterne, 2009. "Models for potentially biased evidence in meta‐analysis using empirically based priors," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 119-136, January.
    16. Enrique A. Navarro-Camba & Jaume Segura-García & Claudio Gomez-Perretta, 2018. "Exposure to 50 Hz Magnetic Fields in Homes and Areas Surrounding Urban Transformer Stations in Silla (Spain): Environmental Impact Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-11, July.
    17. P. Gustafson & L. C. McCandless & A. R. Levy & S. Richardson, 2010. "Simplified Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis for Mismeasured and Unobserved Confounders," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 1129-1137, December.
    18. Leeka Kheifets & Jack D. Sahl & Riti Shimkhada & Mike H. Repacholi, 2005. "Developing Policy in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty: Interpreting 0.3 μT or 0.4 μT Cutpoints from EMF Epidemiologic Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 927-935, August.
    19. Graham Scotland & Stirling Bryan, 2017. "Why Do Health Economists Promote Technology Adoption Rather Than the Search for Efficiency? A Proposal for a Change in Our Approach to Economic Evaluation in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 139-147, February.
    20. N. J. Cooper & A. J. Sutton & A. E. Ades & S. Paisley & D. R. Jones, 2007. "Use of evidence in economic decision models: practical issues and methodological challenges," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1277-1286.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:4:p:3889-3902:d:47844. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.