Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (18)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PUNNETT, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by PUNNETT, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 Oxford University Press

research-article

Adjusting for the Healthy Worker Selection Effect in Cross-Sectional Studies

LAURA PUNNETT

Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell One University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854, USA.

Punnett L (Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, One University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854, USA). Adjusting for the healthy worker selection effect in cross-sectional studies. International Journal of Epidemiology 1996; 25: 1068–1076.

BACKGROUND: In a cross-sectional study of musculoskeletal disorders, women employed in highly repetitive manual work (garment assembly) were found to have approximately double the risk observed in a population with more varied tasks (hospital work). It was suspected that this estimate might be biased If garment workers with musculoskeletal pain were more likely than others to leave employment.

METHODS: Retrospective information on date of first onset of symptoms and years employed to date of pain onset, or to survey date (whichever was earlier), was used to calculate age and calendar period-specific rates of onset, conditional on remaining employed until the survey.

RESULTS: These rates, and the relative risk for garment work, increased over the 20-year period preceding the year of the survey. The trend was not explained by age or length of employment, or by any known changes in work demands that might have caused a true increase in incidence density.

CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of longitudinal cohort data, alternative explanations for these results cannot be excluded. However, with specified assumptions, the most plausible appears to be a healthy worker selection effect acting differentially between high and low exposure groups. This effect would have caused the smallest bias in the prevalence in the year immediately before the survey, and a better estimate of the true relative risk would be approximately five. Where date of onset has been obtained, this method may be used in other cross-sectional studies to estimate and reduce the magnitude of selection bias in a survivor population, if longitudinal data cannot be collected.

Keywords cross-sectional studies, epidemiological methods, healthy worker effect, occupational disease, selection bias

Revised 1 December 1995


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J Sports MedHome page
A. Capel, F. S. Medina, D. Medina, and S. Gomez
Magnetic Resonance Study of Lumbar Disks in Female Dancers
Am. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2009; 37(6): 1208 - 1213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
M J M Hoozemans, A J van der Beek, M H W Frings-Dresen, L H V van der Woude, and F J H van Dijk
Pushing and pulling in association with low back and shoulder complaints
Occup. Environ. Med., October 1, 2002; 59(10): 696 - 702.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
K Fredriksson, L Alfredsson, G Ahlberg, M Josephson, A Kilbom, E Wigaeus Hjelm, C Wiktorin, and E Vingard
Work environment and neck and shoulder pain: the influence of exposure time. Results from a population based case-control study
Occup. Environ. Med., March 1, 2002; 59(3): 182 - 188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.