1979-2011年OSHA合规监测数据趋势:77种化学品辅助信息的统计建模。

Philippe Sarazin, I. Burstyn, L. Kincl, J. Lavoué
{"title":"1979-2011年OSHA合规监测数据趋势:77种化学品辅助信息的统计建模。","authors":"Philippe Sarazin, I. Burstyn, L. Kincl, J. Lavoué","doi":"10.1093/annhyg/mev092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nThe Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) is the largest multi-industry source of exposure measurements available in North America. However, many have suspected that the criteria through which worksites are selected for inspection are related to exposure levels. We investigated associations between exposure levels and ancillary variables in IMIS in order to understand the predictors of high exposure within an enforcement context.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe analyzed the association between nine variables (reason for inspection, establishment size, total amount of penalty, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plan, OSHA region, union status, inspection scope, year, and industry) and exposure levels in IMIS using multimodel inference for 77 agents. For each agent, we used two different types of models: (i) logistic models were used for the odds ratio (OR) of exposure being above the threshold limit value (TLV) and (ii) linear models were used for exposure concentrations restricted to detected results to estimate percent increase in exposure level, i.e. relative index of exposure (RIE). Meta-analytic methods were used to combine results for each variable across agents.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 511,047 exposure measurements were modeled for logistic models and 299,791 for linear models. Higher exposures were measured during follow-up inspections than planned inspections [meta-OR = 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.44-1.81; meta-RIE = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.09]. Lower exposures were observed for measurements collected under state OSHA plans compared to measurements collected under federal OSHA (meta-OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92; meta-RIE = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91). A 'high' total historical amount of penalty relative to none was associated with higher exposures (meta-OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.40-1.71; meta-RIE = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.13-1.23).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe relationships observed between exposure levels and ancillary variables across a vast majority of agents suggest that certain elements of OSHA's process of selecting worksites for inspection influence the exposure levels that OSHA inspectors encounter. Nonetheless, given the paucity of other sources of exposure data and the lack of a more demonstrably representative data source, our study considers the use of IMIS data for the estimation of exposures in the broader universe of worksites in the USA.","PeriodicalId":342592,"journal":{"name":"The Annals of occupational hygiene","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends in OSHA Compliance Monitoring Data 1979-2011: Statistical Modeling of Ancillary Information across 77 Chemicals.\",\"authors\":\"Philippe Sarazin, I. Burstyn, L. Kincl, J. Lavoué\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/annhyg/mev092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES\\nThe Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) is the largest multi-industry source of exposure measurements available in North America. However, many have suspected that the criteria through which worksites are selected for inspection are related to exposure levels. We investigated associations between exposure levels and ancillary variables in IMIS in order to understand the predictors of high exposure within an enforcement context.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nWe analyzed the association between nine variables (reason for inspection, establishment size, total amount of penalty, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plan, OSHA region, union status, inspection scope, year, and industry) and exposure levels in IMIS using multimodel inference for 77 agents. For each agent, we used two different types of models: (i) logistic models were used for the odds ratio (OR) of exposure being above the threshold limit value (TLV) and (ii) linear models were used for exposure concentrations restricted to detected results to estimate percent increase in exposure level, i.e. relative index of exposure (RIE). Meta-analytic methods were used to combine results for each variable across agents.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nA total of 511,047 exposure measurements were modeled for logistic models and 299,791 for linear models. Higher exposures were measured during follow-up inspections than planned inspections [meta-OR = 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.44-1.81; meta-RIE = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.09]. Lower exposures were observed for measurements collected under state OSHA plans compared to measurements collected under federal OSHA (meta-OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92; meta-RIE = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91). A 'high' total historical amount of penalty relative to none was associated with higher exposures (meta-OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.40-1.71; meta-RIE = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.13-1.23).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nThe relationships observed between exposure levels and ancillary variables across a vast majority of agents suggest that certain elements of OSHA's process of selecting worksites for inspection influence the exposure levels that OSHA inspectors encounter. Nonetheless, given the paucity of other sources of exposure data and the lack of a more demonstrably representative data source, our study considers the use of IMIS data for the estimation of exposures in the broader universe of worksites in the USA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":342592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Annals of occupational hygiene\",\"volume\":\"114 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Annals of occupational hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Annals of occupational hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

目的综合管理信息系统(IMIS)是北美最大的多行业暴露测量来源。然而,许多人怀疑选择工作地点进行检查的标准与暴露水平有关。我们调查了综合管理信息系统中暴露水平和辅助变量之间的关系,以便了解执法环境中高暴露的预测因素。方法采用多模型推理方法,对77名代理人进行综合管理信息系统中9个变量(检查原因、机构规模、处罚总额、职业安全与健康管理局(OSHA)计划、OSHA地区、工会状况、检查范围、年份和行业)与暴露水平的相关性分析。对于每种物质,我们使用了两种不同类型的模型:(i) logistic模型用于暴露高于阈值(TLV)的比值比(OR), (ii)线性模型用于暴露浓度仅限于检测结果,以估计暴露水平的增加百分比,即相对暴露指数(RIE)。荟萃分析方法用于综合各因素的每个变量的结果。结果logistic模型和线性模型分别对511,047个和299,791个暴露量进行了建模。随访检查中暴露量高于计划检查[meta-OR = 1.61, 95%可信区间(CI): 1.44-1.81;meta-RIE = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.09]。与联邦OSHA相比,在州OSHA计划下收集的测量数据的暴露量更低(meta-OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92;meta-RIE = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91)。相对于无处罚,“高”的总历史处罚金额与较高的暴露相关(meta-OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.40-1.71;meta-RIE = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.13-1.23)。结论:观察到的绝大多数物质的暴露水平与辅助变量之间的关系表明,OSHA选择检查工作场所过程中的某些因素影响了OSHA检查员遇到的暴露水平。尽管如此,鉴于缺乏其他暴露数据来源和缺乏更具代表性的数据源,我们的研究考虑使用综合管理信息系统数据来估计美国更广泛的工作场所的暴露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trends in OSHA Compliance Monitoring Data 1979-2011: Statistical Modeling of Ancillary Information across 77 Chemicals.
OBJECTIVES The Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) is the largest multi-industry source of exposure measurements available in North America. However, many have suspected that the criteria through which worksites are selected for inspection are related to exposure levels. We investigated associations between exposure levels and ancillary variables in IMIS in order to understand the predictors of high exposure within an enforcement context. METHODS We analyzed the association between nine variables (reason for inspection, establishment size, total amount of penalty, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plan, OSHA region, union status, inspection scope, year, and industry) and exposure levels in IMIS using multimodel inference for 77 agents. For each agent, we used two different types of models: (i) logistic models were used for the odds ratio (OR) of exposure being above the threshold limit value (TLV) and (ii) linear models were used for exposure concentrations restricted to detected results to estimate percent increase in exposure level, i.e. relative index of exposure (RIE). Meta-analytic methods were used to combine results for each variable across agents. RESULTS A total of 511,047 exposure measurements were modeled for logistic models and 299,791 for linear models. Higher exposures were measured during follow-up inspections than planned inspections [meta-OR = 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.44-1.81; meta-RIE = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.09]. Lower exposures were observed for measurements collected under state OSHA plans compared to measurements collected under federal OSHA (meta-OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92; meta-RIE = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.91). A 'high' total historical amount of penalty relative to none was associated with higher exposures (meta-OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.40-1.71; meta-RIE = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.13-1.23). CONCLUSIONS The relationships observed between exposure levels and ancillary variables across a vast majority of agents suggest that certain elements of OSHA's process of selecting worksites for inspection influence the exposure levels that OSHA inspectors encounter. Nonetheless, given the paucity of other sources of exposure data and the lack of a more demonstrably representative data source, our study considers the use of IMIS data for the estimation of exposures in the broader universe of worksites in the USA.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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