法国医护人员工作接触矩阵的开发与验证:JEM Soignances.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.5271/sjweh.4194
Allison Singier, Marc Fadel, Fabien Gilbert, Laura Temime, Marie Zins, Alexis Descatha
{"title":"法国医护人员工作接触矩阵的开发与验证:JEM Soignances.","authors":"Allison Singier, Marc Fadel, Fabien Gilbert, Laura Temime, Marie Zins, Alexis Descatha","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to develop and evaluate a job-exposure matrix (JEM) specific to healthcare workers, JEM Soignances, based on self-reported data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The JEM was constructed using data from healthcare workers within the CONSTANCES cohort (N=12 489). Job titles and sectors of activity (eg, hospital activities) defined occupational groups. We assessed 24 exposures covering organizational, psychosocial, physical, chemical and biological factors. Several methods (group-based frequency, CART, random forest, extreme gradient boosting machine) were applied using a 70% training sample. Performance was evaluated on the remaining 30% using area under the ROC curve (AUC) and Cohen's Kappa (κ). Two alternative JEM were proposed using only job titles or adding healthcare establishment size and type (public/private) to define occupational groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All methods offered similar discriminatory power (AUC). We selected the group-based frequency method as it was the most understandable and easiest to implement. Of the 24 included exposures, 15 demonstrated satisfactory performance, with nine showing good discriminatory power and fair-to-moderate agreement, such as physical effort at work (AUC=0.861, κ=0.556), ionizing radiation exposure (AUC=0.865, κ=0.457), carrying heavy loads (AUC=0.840, κ=0.402), shift work (AUC=0.807, κ=0.383), and formaldehyde exposure (AUC=0.847, κ=0.289). The remaining nine exposures mainly showed poor-to-moderate discriminatory power and poor agreement. Compared to JEM Soignances, the job title-only JEM performed poorly, while the one incorporating healthcare establishment size and type showed similar results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>JEM Soignances provides good internal performance and validity. Future research will assess its external validity by comparing it with existing JEM and examining its predictive validity regarding known associations between exposures and health outcomes (eg, long working hours and strokes).</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and validation of a French job-exposure matrix for healthcare workers: JEM Soignances.\",\"authors\":\"Allison Singier, Marc Fadel, Fabien Gilbert, Laura Temime, Marie Zins, Alexis Descatha\",\"doi\":\"10.5271/sjweh.4194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to develop and evaluate a job-exposure matrix (JEM) specific to healthcare workers, JEM Soignances, based on self-reported data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The JEM was constructed using data from healthcare workers within the CONSTANCES cohort (N=12 489). Job titles and sectors of activity (eg, hospital activities) defined occupational groups. We assessed 24 exposures covering organizational, psychosocial, physical, chemical and biological factors. Several methods (group-based frequency, CART, random forest, extreme gradient boosting machine) were applied using a 70% training sample. Performance was evaluated on the remaining 30% using area under the ROC curve (AUC) and Cohen's Kappa (κ). Two alternative JEM were proposed using only job titles or adding healthcare establishment size and type (public/private) to define occupational groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All methods offered similar discriminatory power (AUC). We selected the group-based frequency method as it was the most understandable and easiest to implement. Of the 24 included exposures, 15 demonstrated satisfactory performance, with nine showing good discriminatory power and fair-to-moderate agreement, such as physical effort at work (AUC=0.861, κ=0.556), ionizing radiation exposure (AUC=0.865, κ=0.457), carrying heavy loads (AUC=0.840, κ=0.402), shift work (AUC=0.807, κ=0.383), and formaldehyde exposure (AUC=0.847, κ=0.289). The remaining nine exposures mainly showed poor-to-moderate discriminatory power and poor agreement. Compared to JEM Soignances, the job title-only JEM performed poorly, while the one incorporating healthcare establishment size and type showed similar results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>JEM Soignances provides good internal performance and validity. Future research will assess its external validity by comparing it with existing JEM and examining its predictive validity regarding known associations between exposures and health outcomes (eg, long working hours and strokes).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4194\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4194","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在根据自我报告的数据,开发并评估专门针对医护人员的工作暴露矩阵(JEM)--JEM Soignances:工作暴露矩阵是利用 CONSTANCES 队列中医护人员(12 489 人)的数据构建的。职称和活动部门(如医院活动)定义了职业组别。我们评估了 24 种暴露因素,涵盖组织、社会心理、物理、化学和生物因素。使用 70% 的训练样本应用了几种方法(基于组的频率、CART、随机森林、极端梯度提升机)。使用 ROC 曲线下面积(AUC)和 Cohen's Kappa(κ)对剩余 30% 的样本进行性能评估。此外,还提出了两种备选的 JEM,即仅使用职称或增加医疗机构规模和类型(公立/私立)来定义职业组别:结果:所有方法都具有相似的判别能力(AUC)。我们选择了基于群体频率的方法,因为这种方法最易于理解和实施。在纳入的 24 种暴露中,有 15 种表现令人满意,其中 9 种显示出良好的判别能力和中肯的一致性,如工作中的体力消耗(AUC=0.861,κ=0.556)、电离辐射暴露(AUC=0.865,κ=0.457)、负重(AUC=0.840,κ=0.402)、轮班工作(AUC=0.807,κ=0.383)和甲醛暴露(AUC=0.847,κ=0.289)。其余 9 种暴露主要显示出较差至中等程度的判别能力和较差的一致性。与 JEM Soignances 相比,只有职位名称的 JEM 表现较差,而包含医疗机构规模和类型的 JEM 则显示出相似的结果:结论:JEM Soignances 具有良好的内部表现和有效性。未来的研究将通过与现有的 JEM 进行比较来评估其外部有效性,并检查其对已知暴露与健康结果(如长时间工作与中风)之间关系的预测有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Development and validation of a French job-exposure matrix for healthcare workers: JEM Soignances.

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a job-exposure matrix (JEM) specific to healthcare workers, JEM Soignances, based on self-reported data.

Methods: The JEM was constructed using data from healthcare workers within the CONSTANCES cohort (N=12 489). Job titles and sectors of activity (eg, hospital activities) defined occupational groups. We assessed 24 exposures covering organizational, psychosocial, physical, chemical and biological factors. Several methods (group-based frequency, CART, random forest, extreme gradient boosting machine) were applied using a 70% training sample. Performance was evaluated on the remaining 30% using area under the ROC curve (AUC) and Cohen's Kappa (κ). Two alternative JEM were proposed using only job titles or adding healthcare establishment size and type (public/private) to define occupational groups.

Results: All methods offered similar discriminatory power (AUC). We selected the group-based frequency method as it was the most understandable and easiest to implement. Of the 24 included exposures, 15 demonstrated satisfactory performance, with nine showing good discriminatory power and fair-to-moderate agreement, such as physical effort at work (AUC=0.861, κ=0.556), ionizing radiation exposure (AUC=0.865, κ=0.457), carrying heavy loads (AUC=0.840, κ=0.402), shift work (AUC=0.807, κ=0.383), and formaldehyde exposure (AUC=0.847, κ=0.289). The remaining nine exposures mainly showed poor-to-moderate discriminatory power and poor agreement. Compared to JEM Soignances, the job title-only JEM performed poorly, while the one incorporating healthcare establishment size and type showed similar results.

Conclusions: JEM Soignances provides good internal performance and validity. Future research will assess its external validity by comparing it with existing JEM and examining its predictive validity regarding known associations between exposures and health outcomes (eg, long working hours and strokes).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
9.50%
发文量
65
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).
期刊最新文献
Prevention of hypertension due to long working hours and other work hazards is needed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Emotional dissonance and mental health among home-care workers: A nationwide prospective study of the moderating role of leadership behaviors. Workplace-based prevention and management of knee pain: a systematic review. Towards the year 2049: The next 25 years of occupational health and safety research. When will we have enough evidence to require improvements at the workplace?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1