Validity of self-reported night shift work among women with and without breast cancer.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jesper Medom Vestergaard, Jesper Nikolai Dietrich Haug, Annett Dalbøge, Jens Peter Ellekilde Bonde, Anne Helene Garde, Johnni Hansen, Åse Marie Hansen, Ann Dyreborg Larsen, Mikko Härmä, Sadie Costello, Henrik Albert Kolstad
{"title":"Validity of self-reported night shift work among women with and without breast cancer.","authors":"Jesper Medom Vestergaard, Jesper Nikolai Dietrich Haug, Annett Dalbøge, Jens Peter Ellekilde Bonde, Anne Helene Garde, Johnni Hansen, Åse Marie Hansen, Ann Dyreborg Larsen, Mikko Härmä, Sadie Costello, Henrik Albert Kolstad","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to estimate the validity of self-reported information on ever-night shift work among women with and without breast cancer and illustrate the consequences for breast cancer risk estimates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>During 2015-2016, 225 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 1800 matched controls without breast cancer employed within the Danish hospital regions during 2007-2016 participated in a questionnaire-based survey. Their reported night shift work status was linked with objective payroll register day-by-day working hour data from the Danish Working Hour Database and the Danish Cancer Registry. For the breast cancer patients and their matched controls, we estimated sensitivity and specificity for ever-working night shifts using the payroll data as the gold standard. We also used quantitative bias analysis to estimate the impact on relative risk estimates for a hypothetical population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For breast cancer patients, we observed a sensitivity of ever-night shifts of 86.2% and a specificity of never-night shifts of 82.6%. For controls, the sensitivity was 80.6% and the specificity 83.7%. Odds ratio for breast cancer in a hypothetical population decreased from 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.21] to 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16) when corrected by the sensitivity and specificity estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that female breast cancer patients had slightly better recall of previous night shift work than controls. Additionally, both breast cancer patients and controls recalled previous never-night shift work with low specificity. The net effect of this misclassification is a small over-estimation of the relative breast cancer risk due to night shift work.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":"152-157"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11006433/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4142","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to estimate the validity of self-reported information on ever-night shift work among women with and without breast cancer and illustrate the consequences for breast cancer risk estimates.

Methods: During 2015-2016, 225 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 1800 matched controls without breast cancer employed within the Danish hospital regions during 2007-2016 participated in a questionnaire-based survey. Their reported night shift work status was linked with objective payroll register day-by-day working hour data from the Danish Working Hour Database and the Danish Cancer Registry. For the breast cancer patients and their matched controls, we estimated sensitivity and specificity for ever-working night shifts using the payroll data as the gold standard. We also used quantitative bias analysis to estimate the impact on relative risk estimates for a hypothetical population.

Results: For breast cancer patients, we observed a sensitivity of ever-night shifts of 86.2% and a specificity of never-night shifts of 82.6%. For controls, the sensitivity was 80.6% and the specificity 83.7%. Odds ratio for breast cancer in a hypothetical population decreased from 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.21] to 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16) when corrected by the sensitivity and specificity estimates.

Conclusion: This study shows that female breast cancer patients had slightly better recall of previous night shift work than controls. Additionally, both breast cancer patients and controls recalled previous never-night shift work with low specificity. The net effect of this misclassification is a small over-estimation of the relative breast cancer risk due to night shift work.

患有和未患有乳腺癌的妇女自我报告夜班工作的有效性。
研究目的本研究旨在估算患有和未患有乳腺癌的女性自我报告的曾经夜班工作信息的有效性,并说明其对乳腺癌风险估算的影响:在 2015-2016 年期间,225 名确诊患有乳腺癌的女性和 1800 名在 2007-2016 年期间受雇于丹麦医院区域的未患乳腺癌的匹配对照者参与了一项基于问卷的调查。她们报告的夜班工作状况与丹麦工时数据库和丹麦癌症登记处提供的客观薪资登记逐日工时数据相关联。对于乳腺癌患者及其匹配对照,我们以工资单数据为金标准,估算了曾经上夜班的敏感性和特异性。我们还使用定量偏差分析来估计对假设人群相对风险估计值的影响:对于乳腺癌患者,我们观察到曾经上夜班的敏感性为 86.2%,从未上夜班的特异性为 82.6%。对于对照组,敏感性为 80.6%,特异性为 83.7%。根据灵敏度和特异性估计值进行校正后,假设人群中乳腺癌的患病率从 1.12 [95% 置信区间 (CI) 1.03-1.21] 降至 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16):本研究表明,女性乳腺癌患者对以往夜班工作的回忆略好于对照组。此外,乳腺癌患者和对照组对以前从未上过夜班的回忆特异性较低。这种错误分类的净结果是,夜班工作导致的乳腺癌相对风险被略微高估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信