Identifying gender differences in reported occupational information from three US population-based case-control studies

Sarah J. Locke, Joanne S. Colt, Patricia A. Stewart, Karla R. Armenti, Dalsu Baris, Aaron Blair, James R Cerhan, Wong Ho Chow, Wendy Cozen, Faith Davis, Anneclaire J. De Roos, Patricia Hartge, Margaret R. Karagas, Alison Johnson, Mark P. Purdue, Nathaniel Rothman, Kendra Schwartz, Molly Schwenn, Richard Severson, Debra T. SilvermanMelissa C. Friesen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Growing evidence suggests that genderblind assessment of exposure may introduce exposure misclassification, but few studies have characterised gender differences across occupations and industries. We pooled control responses to job-specific, industry-specific and exposure-speci fic questionnaires (modules) that asked detailed questions about work activities from three US population-based case-control studies to examine gender differences in work tasks and their frequencies. Methods: We calculated the ratio of female-to-male controls that completed each module. For four job modules (assembly worker, machinist, health professional, janitor/cleaner) and for subgroups of jobs that completed those modules, we evaluated gender differences in task prevalence and frequency using χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Results: The 1360 female and 2245 male controls reported 6033 and 12 083 jobs, respectively. Gender differences in female:male module completion ratios were observed for 39 of 45 modules completed by ≥20 controls. Gender differences in task prevalence varied in direction and magnitude. For example, female janitors were significantly more likely to polish furniture (79% vs 44%), while male janitors were more likely to strip floors (73% vs 50%). Women usually reported more time spent on tasks than men. For example, the median hours per week spent degreasing for production workers in product manufacturing industries was 6.3 for women and 3.0 for men. Conclusions: Observed gender differences may reflect actual differences in tasks performed or differences in recall, reporting or perception, all of which contribute to exposure misclassification and impact relative risk estimates. Our findings reinforce the need to capture subject-specific information on work tasks.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)855-864
Number of pages10
JournalOccupational and Environmental Medicine
Volume71
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014

Fingerprint

Case-Control Studies
Population
Industry
Interior Design and Furnishings
Industrial Oils
Nonparametric Statistics
Occupations
Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Identifying gender differences in reported occupational information from three US population-based case-control studies. / Locke, Sarah J.; Colt, Joanne S.; Stewart, Patricia A.; Armenti, Karla R.; Baris, Dalsu; Blair, Aaron; Cerhan, James R; Chow, Wong Ho; Cozen, Wendy; Davis, Faith; De Roos, Anneclaire J.; Hartge, Patricia; Karagas, Margaret R.; Johnson, Alison; Purdue, Mark P.; Rothman, Nathaniel; Schwartz, Kendra; Schwenn, Molly; Severson, Richard; Silverman, Debra T.; Friesen, Melissa C.

In: Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 71, No. 12, 01.12.2014, p. 855-864.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Locke, SJ, Colt, JS, Stewart, PA, Armenti, KR, Baris, D, Blair, A, Cerhan, JR, Chow, WH, Cozen, W, Davis, F, De Roos, AJ, Hartge, P, Karagas, MR, Johnson, A, Purdue, MP, Rothman, N, Schwartz, K, Schwenn, M, Severson, R, Silverman, DT & Friesen, MC 2014, 'Identifying gender differences in reported occupational information from three US population-based case-control studies', Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 71, no. 12, pp. 855-864. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101801
Locke, Sarah J. ; Colt, Joanne S. ; Stewart, Patricia A. ; Armenti, Karla R. ; Baris, Dalsu ; Blair, Aaron ; Cerhan, James R ; Chow, Wong Ho ; Cozen, Wendy ; Davis, Faith ; De Roos, Anneclaire J. ; Hartge, Patricia ; Karagas, Margaret R. ; Johnson, Alison ; Purdue, Mark P. ; Rothman, Nathaniel ; Schwartz, Kendra ; Schwenn, Molly ; Severson, Richard ; Silverman, Debra T. ; Friesen, Melissa C. / Identifying gender differences in reported occupational information from three US population-based case-control studies. In: Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 71, No. 12. pp. 855-864.
@article{46d5b926a19d4d0fa0f0c40b47d7acc0,
title = "Identifying gender differences in reported occupational information from three US population-based case-control studies",
abstract = "Objectives: Growing evidence suggests that genderblind assessment of exposure may introduce exposure misclassification, but few studies have characterised gender differences across occupations and industries. We pooled control responses to job-specific, industry-specific and exposure-speci fic questionnaires (modules) that asked detailed questions about work activities from three US population-based case-control studies to examine gender differences in work tasks and their frequencies. Methods: We calculated the ratio of female-to-male controls that completed each module. For four job modules (assembly worker, machinist, health professional, janitor/cleaner) and for subgroups of jobs that completed those modules, we evaluated gender differences in task prevalence and frequency using χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Results: The 1360 female and 2245 male controls reported 6033 and 12 083 jobs, respectively. Gender differences in female:male module completion ratios were observed for 39 of 45 modules completed by ≥20 controls. Gender differences in task prevalence varied in direction and magnitude. For example, female janitors were significantly more likely to polish furniture (79{\%} vs 44{\%}), while male janitors were more likely to strip floors (73{\%} vs 50{\%}). Women usually reported more time spent on tasks than men. For example, the median hours per week spent degreasing for production workers in product manufacturing industries was 6.3 for women and 3.0 for men. Conclusions: Observed gender differences may reflect actual differences in tasks performed or differences in recall, reporting or perception, all of which contribute to exposure misclassification and impact relative risk estimates. Our findings reinforce the need to capture subject-specific information on work tasks.",
author = "Locke, {Sarah J.} and Colt, {Joanne S.} and Stewart, {Patricia A.} and Armenti, {Karla R.} and Dalsu Baris and Aaron Blair and Cerhan, {James R} and Chow, {Wong Ho} and Wendy Cozen and Faith Davis and {De Roos}, {Anneclaire J.} and Patricia Hartge and Karagas, {Margaret R.} and Alison Johnson and Purdue, {Mark P.} and Nathaniel Rothman and Kendra Schwartz and Molly Schwenn and Richard Severson and Silverman, {Debra T.} and Friesen, {Melissa C.}",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/oemed-2013-101801",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "855--864",
journal = "Occupational and Environmental Medicine",
issn = "1351-0711",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identifying gender differences in reported occupational information from three US population-based case-control studies

AU - Locke, Sarah J.

AU - Colt, Joanne S.

AU - Stewart, Patricia A.

AU - Armenti, Karla R.

AU - Baris, Dalsu

AU - Blair, Aaron

AU - Cerhan, James R

AU - Chow, Wong Ho

AU - Cozen, Wendy

AU - Davis, Faith

AU - De Roos, Anneclaire J.

AU - Hartge, Patricia

AU - Karagas, Margaret R.

AU - Johnson, Alison

AU - Purdue, Mark P.

AU - Rothman, Nathaniel

AU - Schwartz, Kendra

AU - Schwenn, Molly

AU - Severson, Richard

AU - Silverman, Debra T.

AU - Friesen, Melissa C.

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Objectives: Growing evidence suggests that genderblind assessment of exposure may introduce exposure misclassification, but few studies have characterised gender differences across occupations and industries. We pooled control responses to job-specific, industry-specific and exposure-speci fic questionnaires (modules) that asked detailed questions about work activities from three US population-based case-control studies to examine gender differences in work tasks and their frequencies. Methods: We calculated the ratio of female-to-male controls that completed each module. For four job modules (assembly worker, machinist, health professional, janitor/cleaner) and for subgroups of jobs that completed those modules, we evaluated gender differences in task prevalence and frequency using χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Results: The 1360 female and 2245 male controls reported 6033 and 12 083 jobs, respectively. Gender differences in female:male module completion ratios were observed for 39 of 45 modules completed by ≥20 controls. Gender differences in task prevalence varied in direction and magnitude. For example, female janitors were significantly more likely to polish furniture (79% vs 44%), while male janitors were more likely to strip floors (73% vs 50%). Women usually reported more time spent on tasks than men. For example, the median hours per week spent degreasing for production workers in product manufacturing industries was 6.3 for women and 3.0 for men. Conclusions: Observed gender differences may reflect actual differences in tasks performed or differences in recall, reporting or perception, all of which contribute to exposure misclassification and impact relative risk estimates. Our findings reinforce the need to capture subject-specific information on work tasks.

AB - Objectives: Growing evidence suggests that genderblind assessment of exposure may introduce exposure misclassification, but few studies have characterised gender differences across occupations and industries. We pooled control responses to job-specific, industry-specific and exposure-speci fic questionnaires (modules) that asked detailed questions about work activities from three US population-based case-control studies to examine gender differences in work tasks and their frequencies. Methods: We calculated the ratio of female-to-male controls that completed each module. For four job modules (assembly worker, machinist, health professional, janitor/cleaner) and for subgroups of jobs that completed those modules, we evaluated gender differences in task prevalence and frequency using χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Results: The 1360 female and 2245 male controls reported 6033 and 12 083 jobs, respectively. Gender differences in female:male module completion ratios were observed for 39 of 45 modules completed by ≥20 controls. Gender differences in task prevalence varied in direction and magnitude. For example, female janitors were significantly more likely to polish furniture (79% vs 44%), while male janitors were more likely to strip floors (73% vs 50%). Women usually reported more time spent on tasks than men. For example, the median hours per week spent degreasing for production workers in product manufacturing industries was 6.3 for women and 3.0 for men. Conclusions: Observed gender differences may reflect actual differences in tasks performed or differences in recall, reporting or perception, all of which contribute to exposure misclassification and impact relative risk estimates. Our findings reinforce the need to capture subject-specific information on work tasks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908616016&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908616016&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/oemed-2013-101801

DO - 10.1136/oemed-2013-101801

M3 - Article

C2 - 24683012

AN - SCOPUS:84908616016

VL - 71

SP - 855

EP - 864

JO - Occupational and Environmental Medicine

JF - Occupational and Environmental Medicine

SN - 1351-0711

IS - 12

ER -