Occupational Asthma Reference

McNamee R, Carder M, Chen Y, Agius R, Measurement of trends in incidence of work-related skin and respiratory diseases, UK 1996–2005, Occup Environ Med, 2008;65:808-814,
(Plain text: McNamee R, Carder M, Chen Y, Agius R, Measurement of trends in incidence of work-related skin and respiratory diseases, UK 1996-2005, Occup Environ Med)

Keywords: SWORD, surveillance,sword,

Known Authors

Raymond Agius, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Manchester University Raymond Agius

Roseanne McNamee, Manchester University COEH Roseanne McNamee

Melanie Carder, COEH Manchester Melanie Carder

If you would like to become a known author and have your picture displayed along with your papers then please get in touch from the contact page. Known authors can choose to receive emails when their papers receive comments.

Abstract

Objectives: The ability to measure temporal trends in disease incidence is important, but valid methods are needed. This study investigates UK trends during 1996–2005 in work-related skin and respiratory diseases including non-malignant pleural disease, asthma, mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis and the potential for bias when using surveillance systems for this purpose.

Methods: The volunteer reporters in three surveillance schemes were specialist physicians for skin diseases, specialist physicians for respiratory diseases and occupational physicians, respectively, who provided monthly reports of new cases of disease which they considered work related. Poisson regression models were used to investigate variation by calendar year (trend), season and reporter characteristics. Separately, temporal patterns in the probabilities of non-response and zero reports were investigated. Annual changes in disease incidences were compared between reporter groups.

Results: There was little evidence of change in incidences of non-malignant pleural disease, mesothelioma, skin neoplasia and urticaria, but falls were seen for contact dermatitis and pneumoconiosis. Although the directions of change were similar across reporter groups, the magnitude of annual change in incidence was often inconsistent: for occupational asthma, it was –1.9% (95% CI –5.2 to 1.4) and –12.1% (95% CI–19.5 to –4.1) using respiratory and occupational physician reports, respectively. Response rates were high (85%), but non-response increased slightly with membership time, as did the probability of a zero return in some groups. Adjustment of results for presumed reporting fatigue led to an upward correction in some calendar trends.

Conclusions: As some estimated changes in incidence based on volunteer reporting may be biased by reporting fatigue, apparent downward trends need to be interpreted cautiously. Differences in the population bases of the surveillance schemes and UK health service capacity constraints may also explain the differences in trends found here.

Plain text: Objectives: The ability to measure temporal trends in disease incidence is important, but valid methods are needed. This study investigates UK trends during 1996-2005 in work-related skin and respiratory diseases including non-malignant pleural disease, asthma, mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis and the potential for bias when using surveillance systems for this purpose. Methods: The volunteer reporters in three surveillance schemes were specialist physicians for skin diseases, specialist physicians for respiratory diseases and occupational physicians, respectively, who provided monthly reports of new cases of disease which they considered work related. Poisson regression models were used to investigate variation by calendar year (trend), season and reporter characteristics. Separately, temporal patterns in the probabilities of non-response and zero reports were investigated. Annual changes in disease incidences were compared between reporter groups. Results: There was little evidence of change in incidences of non-malignant pleural disease, mesothelioma, skin neoplasia and urticaria, but falls were seen for contact dermatitis and pneumoconiosis. Although the directions of change were similar across reporter groups, the magnitude of annual change in incidence was often inconsistent: for occupational asthma, it was -1.9% (95% CI -5.2 to 1.4) and -12.1% (95% CI-19.5 to -4.1) using respiratory and occupational physician reports, respectively. Response rates were high (85%), but non-response increased slightly with membership time, as did the probability of a zero return in some groups. Adjustment of results for presumed reporting fatigue led to an upward correction in some calendar trends. Conclusions: As some estimated changes in incidence based on volunteer reporting may be biased by reporting fatigue, apparent downward trends need to be interpreted cautiously. Differences in the population bases of the surveillance schemes and UK health service capacity constraints may also explain the differences in trends found here.

Full Text

Full text of this reference not available

Please Log In or Register to add the full text to this reference

Associated Questions

Registered users of this website have associated this reference with the following questions. This association is not a part of the BOHRF occupational asthma guidelines.

What is the frequency of occupational asthma?
burgeps

Please Log In or Register to put forward this reference as evidence to a question.

Comments

Please sign in or register to add your thoughts.


Oasys and occupational asthma smoke logo