Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors
| Autor(a) principal: | |
|---|---|
| Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
| Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | eng |
| Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
| Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10362/148461 |
Resumo: | Funding Information: All authors are salaried staff members of their respective institutions. This publication was prepared with financial support to the WHO from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States of America (Grant 1E11OH0010676-02; Grant 6NE11OH010461-02–01; and Grant 5NE11OH010461-03–00); the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG Germany) under the BMG-WHO Collaboration Programme 2020–2023 (WHO specified award ref. 70672); the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECID) (WHO specified award ref.71208). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Funding Information: We thank Dr. Paul Whaley (Lancaster University) for sharing his ideas and his editorial review. Professor Carel T.J. Hulshof and Professor Monique H. Frings-Dresen (both University of Amsterdam) have prepared and shared the body of evidence from the ongoing systematic review on the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for pilot testing. Dr. Richard Brown (WHO), Professor Vivi Schl?nssen (Aarhus University) and Stevie van der Mierden (Netherlands Cancer Institute) provided feedback on QoE-SPEO and/or an earlier version of this article. At the time of development of the manuscript, SLN was affiliated with Department of Quality Assurance, Norms and Standards, World Health Organization; however their current affiliation is Oregon Health & Science University. At the time of development of the manuscript, LAB was affiliated with Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney; however their current affiliation is General Internal Medicine/Public Health/Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado?Anschutz Medical Campus. SLN is a member of the GRADE working group. LB is Senior Editor, Research Integrity, Cochrane for which The University of Colorado receives remuneration. All other authors report no conflict of interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 |
| id |
RCAP_4c752fc5cc10ce7b641c89a9dd699c18 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:run.unl.pt:10362/148461 |
| network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
| network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
| repository_id_str |
7160 |
| spelling |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factorsThe QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and InjuryBody of evidenceExposure scienceOccupational healthPrevalence studiesQuality of evidenceSystematic reviewR MedicineA General WorksEnvironmental Science(all)Public Health, Environmental and Occupational HealthHealth Professions (miscellaneous)SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-beingSDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic GrowthFunding Information: All authors are salaried staff members of their respective institutions. This publication was prepared with financial support to the WHO from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States of America (Grant 1E11OH0010676-02; Grant 6NE11OH010461-02–01; and Grant 5NE11OH010461-03–00); the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG Germany) under the BMG-WHO Collaboration Programme 2020–2023 (WHO specified award ref. 70672); the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECID) (WHO specified award ref.71208). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Funding Information: We thank Dr. Paul Whaley (Lancaster University) for sharing his ideas and his editorial review. Professor Carel T.J. Hulshof and Professor Monique H. Frings-Dresen (both University of Amsterdam) have prepared and shared the body of evidence from the ongoing systematic review on the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for pilot testing. Dr. Richard Brown (WHO), Professor Vivi Schl?nssen (Aarhus University) and Stevie van der Mierden (Netherlands Cancer Institute) provided feedback on QoE-SPEO and/or an earlier version of this article. At the time of development of the manuscript, SLN was affiliated with Department of Quality Assurance, Norms and Standards, World Health Organization; however their current affiliation is Oregon Health & Science University. At the time of development of the manuscript, LAB was affiliated with Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney; however their current affiliation is General Internal Medicine/Public Health/Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado?Anschutz Medical Campus. SLN is a member of the GRADE working group. LB is Senior Editor, Research Integrity, Cochrane for which The University of Colorado receives remuneration. All other authors report no conflict of interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have produced the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For these, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors have been conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methodology is to assess the quality of evidence across studies. In this article, we present the approach applied in these WHO/ILO systematic reviews for performing such assessments on studies of prevalence of exposure. It is called the Quality of Evidence in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (QoE-SPEO) approach. We describe QoE-SPEO's development to date, demonstrate its feasibility reporting results from pilot testing and case studies, note its strengths and limitations, and suggest how QoE-SPEO should be tested and developed further. Methods: Following a comprehensive literature review, and using expert opinion, selected existing quality of evidence assessment approaches used in environmental and occupational health were reviewed and analysed for their relevance to prevalence studies. Relevant steps and components from the existing approaches were adopted or adapted for QoE-SPEO. New steps and components were developed. We elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and reached consensus on the QoE-SPEO approach. Ten individual experts pilot-tested QoE-SPEO. To assess inter-rater agreement, we counted ratings of expected (actual and non-spurious) heterogeneity and quality of evidence and calculated a raw measure of agreement (Pi) between individual raters and rater teams for the downgrade domains. Pi ranged between 0.00 (no two pilot testers selected the same rating) and 1.00 (all pilot testers selected the same rating). Case studies were conducted of experiences of QoE-SPEO's use in two WHO/ILO systematic reviews. Results: We found no existing quality of evidence assessment approach for occupational exposure prevalence studies. We identified three relevant, existing approaches for environmental and occupational health studies of the effect of exposures. Assessments using QoE-SPEO comprise three steps: (1) judge the level of expected heterogeneity (defined as non-spurious variability that can be expected in exposure prevalence, within or between individual persons, because exposure may change over space and/or time), (2) assess downgrade domains, and (3) reach a final rating on the quality of evidence. Assessments are conducted using the same five downgrade domains as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach: (a) risk of bias, (b) indirectness, (c) inconsistency, (d) imprecision, and (e) publication bias. For downgrade domains (c) and (d), the assessment varies depending on the level of expected heterogeneity. There are no upgrade domains. The QoE-SPEO's ratings are “very low”, “low”, “moderate”, and “high”. To arrive at a final decision on the overall quality of evidence, the assessor starts at “high” quality of evidence and for each domain downgrades by one or two levels for serious concerns or very serious concerns, respectively. In pilot tests, there was reasonable agreement in ratings for expected heterogeneity; 70% of raters selected the same rating. Inter-rater agreement ranged considerably between downgrade domains, both for individual rater pairs (range Pi: 0.36–1.00) and rater teams (0.20–1.00). Sparse data prevented rigorous assessment of inter-rater agreement in quality of evidence ratings. Conclusions: We present QoE-SPEO as an approach for assessing quality of evidence in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. It has been developed to its current version (as presented here), has undergone pilot testing, and was applied in the systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. While the approach requires further testing and development, it makes steps towards filling an identified gap, and progress made so far can be used to inform future work in this area.Global Health and Tropical Medicine (GHTM)Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical (IHMT)RUNPega, FrankMomen, Natalie C.Gagliardi, DianaBero, Lisa A.Boccuni, FabioChartres, NicholasDescatha, AlexisDzhambov, Angel M.Godderis, LodeLoney, TomMandrioli, DanieleModenese, Albertovan der Molen, Henk F.Morgan, Rebecca L.Neupane, SubasPachito, DanielaPaulo, Marilia S.Prakash, K. C.Scheepers, Paul T.J.Teixeira, LilianeTenkate, ThomasWoodruff, Tracey J.Norris, Susan L.2023-01-31T22:21:22Z2022-032022-03-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10362/148461eng0160-4120PURE: 50926179https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107136info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-03-11T05:29:51Zoai:run.unl.pt:10362/148461Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T03:53:22.072482Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury |
| title |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors |
| spellingShingle |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors Pega, Frank Body of evidence Exposure science Occupational health Prevalence studies Quality of evidence Systematic review R Medicine A General Works Environmental Science(all) Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Health Professions (miscellaneous) SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth |
| title_short |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors |
| title_full |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors |
| title_fullStr |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors |
| title_sort |
Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors |
| author |
Pega, Frank |
| author_facet |
Pega, Frank Momen, Natalie C. Gagliardi, Diana Bero, Lisa A. Boccuni, Fabio Chartres, Nicholas Descatha, Alexis Dzhambov, Angel M. Godderis, Lode Loney, Tom Mandrioli, Daniele Modenese, Alberto van der Molen, Henk F. Morgan, Rebecca L. Neupane, Subas Pachito, Daniela Paulo, Marilia S. Prakash, K. C. Scheepers, Paul T.J. Teixeira, Liliane Tenkate, Thomas Woodruff, Tracey J. Norris, Susan L. |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Momen, Natalie C. Gagliardi, Diana Bero, Lisa A. Boccuni, Fabio Chartres, Nicholas Descatha, Alexis Dzhambov, Angel M. Godderis, Lode Loney, Tom Mandrioli, Daniele Modenese, Alberto van der Molen, Henk F. Morgan, Rebecca L. Neupane, Subas Pachito, Daniela Paulo, Marilia S. Prakash, K. C. Scheepers, Paul T.J. Teixeira, Liliane Tenkate, Thomas Woodruff, Tracey J. Norris, Susan L. |
| author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author |
| dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Global Health and Tropical Medicine (GHTM) Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical (IHMT) RUN |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pega, Frank Momen, Natalie C. Gagliardi, Diana Bero, Lisa A. Boccuni, Fabio Chartres, Nicholas Descatha, Alexis Dzhambov, Angel M. Godderis, Lode Loney, Tom Mandrioli, Daniele Modenese, Alberto van der Molen, Henk F. Morgan, Rebecca L. Neupane, Subas Pachito, Daniela Paulo, Marilia S. Prakash, K. C. Scheepers, Paul T.J. Teixeira, Liliane Tenkate, Thomas Woodruff, Tracey J. Norris, Susan L. |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Body of evidence Exposure science Occupational health Prevalence studies Quality of evidence Systematic review R Medicine A General Works Environmental Science(all) Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Health Professions (miscellaneous) SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth |
| topic |
Body of evidence Exposure science Occupational health Prevalence studies Quality of evidence Systematic review R Medicine A General Works Environmental Science(all) Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health Health Professions (miscellaneous) SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being SDG 8 - Decent Work and Economic Growth |
| description |
Funding Information: All authors are salaried staff members of their respective institutions. This publication was prepared with financial support to the WHO from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States of America (Grant 1E11OH0010676-02; Grant 6NE11OH010461-02–01; and Grant 5NE11OH010461-03–00); the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG Germany) under the BMG-WHO Collaboration Programme 2020–2023 (WHO specified award ref. 70672); the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECID) (WHO specified award ref.71208). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Funding Information: We thank Dr. Paul Whaley (Lancaster University) for sharing his ideas and his editorial review. Professor Carel T.J. Hulshof and Professor Monique H. Frings-Dresen (both University of Amsterdam) have prepared and shared the body of evidence from the ongoing systematic review on the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for pilot testing. Dr. Richard Brown (WHO), Professor Vivi Schl?nssen (Aarhus University) and Stevie van der Mierden (Netherlands Cancer Institute) provided feedback on QoE-SPEO and/or an earlier version of this article. At the time of development of the manuscript, SLN was affiliated with Department of Quality Assurance, Norms and Standards, World Health Organization; however their current affiliation is Oregon Health & Science University. At the time of development of the manuscript, LAB was affiliated with Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney; however their current affiliation is General Internal Medicine/Public Health/Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado?Anschutz Medical Campus. SLN is a member of the GRADE working group. LB is Senior Editor, Research Integrity, Cochrane for which The University of Colorado receives remuneration. All other authors report no conflict of interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-03 2022-03-01T00:00:00Z 2023-01-31T22:21:22Z |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10362/148461 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10362/148461 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
0160-4120 PURE: 50926179 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107136 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
| instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
| instacron_str |
RCAAP |
| institution |
RCAAP |
| reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
| collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
| _version_ |
1799138124483264512 |