Validation of JEM Soignances Job-Exposure Matrix Through Comparison with Self-Reported Exposures Among Healthcare Workers in CONSTANCES.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Allison Singier, Marc Fadel, Fabien Gilbert, Marie Zins, Laura Temime, Alexis Descatha
{"title":"Validation of JEM Soignances Job-Exposure Matrix Through Comparison with Self-Reported Exposures Among Healthcare Workers in CONSTANCES.","authors":"Allison Singier, Marc Fadel, Fabien Gilbert, Marie Zins, Laura Temime, Alexis Descatha","doi":"10.1007/s10926-025-10289-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A healthcare-specific job-exposure matrix, JEM Soignances, was recently developed to assess the occupational exposome of healthcare workers. This study aimed to compare estimates of known associations between occupational exposures and health outcomes obtained using JEM Soignances and self-reported data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Healthcare professionals from the CONSTANCES cohort with linked data from the French National Healthcare Database (SNDS) were included (n = 12219). Exposures were estimated using JEM Soignances (occupations and sectors of activity) and its alternative version (+ establishment size and status), as binary exposure at inclusion or as lifetime cumulative exposure (< 10y/ ≥ 10y). Association with relevant health outcomes (i.e., pain, depressive symptoms, hypertension, cancer, use of psychoactive drugs) were evaluated using logistic regression and compared to estimates obtained from self-reported exposure data in terms of direction, magnitude, and significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For organizational exposures, 10/16 associations for JEM Soignances and 12/16 for the alternative version aligned with self-reported data in direction and magnitude. For biomechanical exposures, confidence intervals overlapped in 11/15 associations for JEM Soignances and in 9/15 for the alternative version. For the others, discrepancies generally lean toward underestimation. For psychosocial exposure, JEM Soignances revealed significant limitations: While self-reported effort-reward imbalance was strongly associated with depressive symptoms (aOR = 3.18[2.81;3.59]), JEM Soignances underestimated this association (aOR = 1.37[1.23;1.54]), and the alternative version failed to detect it (aOR = 0.99[0.87;1.13]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>JEM Soignances demonstrated good agreement with self-reported data for organizational and biomechanical exposures but failed for psychosocial exposure, often underestimating or missing associations. Further research is needed to evaluate JEM Soignances validity for biological, chemical, and physical exposures.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-025-10289-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: A healthcare-specific job-exposure matrix, JEM Soignances, was recently developed to assess the occupational exposome of healthcare workers. This study aimed to compare estimates of known associations between occupational exposures and health outcomes obtained using JEM Soignances and self-reported data.

Methods: Healthcare professionals from the CONSTANCES cohort with linked data from the French National Healthcare Database (SNDS) were included (n = 12219). Exposures were estimated using JEM Soignances (occupations and sectors of activity) and its alternative version (+ establishment size and status), as binary exposure at inclusion or as lifetime cumulative exposure (< 10y/ ≥ 10y). Association with relevant health outcomes (i.e., pain, depressive symptoms, hypertension, cancer, use of psychoactive drugs) were evaluated using logistic regression and compared to estimates obtained from self-reported exposure data in terms of direction, magnitude, and significance.

Results: For organizational exposures, 10/16 associations for JEM Soignances and 12/16 for the alternative version aligned with self-reported data in direction and magnitude. For biomechanical exposures, confidence intervals overlapped in 11/15 associations for JEM Soignances and in 9/15 for the alternative version. For the others, discrepancies generally lean toward underestimation. For psychosocial exposure, JEM Soignances revealed significant limitations: While self-reported effort-reward imbalance was strongly associated with depressive symptoms (aOR = 3.18[2.81;3.59]), JEM Soignances underestimated this association (aOR = 1.37[1.23;1.54]), and the alternative version failed to detect it (aOR = 0.99[0.87;1.13]).

Conclusion: JEM Soignances demonstrated good agreement with self-reported data for organizational and biomechanical exposures but failed for psychosocial exposure, often underestimating or missing associations. Further research is needed to evaluate JEM Soignances validity for biological, chemical, and physical exposures.

通过与常住医院医护人员自我报告暴露比较,验证JEM相关性工作暴露矩阵。
目的:最近开发了一个卫生保健特定工作暴露矩阵,即JEM Soignances,以评估卫生保健工作者的职业暴露。本研究旨在比较使用JEM Soignances和自我报告数据获得的职业暴露与健康结果之间已知关联的估计值。方法:纳入来自法国国家卫生保健数据库(SNDS)相关数据的constance队列的卫生保健专业人员(n = 12219)。使用JEM Soignances(职业和活动部门)及其替代版本(+企业规模和地位)估计暴露,作为纳入时的二元暴露或终身累积暴露(结果:对于组织暴露,10/16的JEM Soignances和12/16的替代版本在方向和大小上与自我报告的数据一致。对于生物力学暴露,JEM显著性的置信区间重叠为11/15,替代版本的置信区间重叠为9/15。对于其他人来说,差异通常倾向于低估。对于社会心理暴露,JEM Soignances显示出显著的局限性:虽然自我报告的努力-奖励不平衡与抑郁症状强烈相关(aOR = 3.18[2.81;3.59]),但JEM Soignances低估了这种关联(aOR = 1.37[1.23;1.54]),而替代版本未能检测到这种关联(aOR = 0.99[0.87;1.13])。结论:JEM Soignances与自我报告的组织和生物力学暴露数据一致,但在社会心理暴露方面不一致,经常低估或遗漏关联。需要进一步的研究来评估JEM对生物、化学和物理暴露的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
×
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