A job-exposure matrix addressing hand exposure to wet work.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to create a job-exposure matrix (JEM) for wet work. A JEM is a tool used to assess exposure to potential health hazards in occupational epidemiological studies. It can be used when counselling concerning job change/job choice, as a medico-legal tool when recognizing diseases as occupational and when planning interventions regarding prevention of, in this case, occupational hand eczema. METHODS: The study population was based on results from national surveys on working environment performed by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment in Denmark in 2000, 2005, and 2010 (National Research Centre for the Working Environment). We assessed responses on questions regarding wet hands, glove wear and total wet work. For the JEM a cutoff of 2 h total wet work/day was chosen as the exposure measurement. The proportion of responses of 2 h total wet work/day in each profession is illustrated as a number between 0 and 1 equal to 0-100% of the responses. RESULTS: Total wet work was most frequent among cleaners (domestic, office, and hotel cleaning), butchers and fishmongers, cooks, beauticians (hairdressers, barbers, related work) and health care workers (home-based personal workers, dentists, dental assistants). Regarding differences between sexes we found that indifferent of age and profession, women had 78% higher odds of having wet work. CONCLUSION: We found that wet work as an exposure varies among professions depending on whether wet hands or glove wear is assessed. A JEM is a useful tool to assess the extent of the exposure, wet work, independent of prior perceptions of classical wet work professions.

Wet work exposure: comparison of observed and self-reported data.

PURPOSE: Wet work is the most important exposure leading to occupational hand eczema; however, the prevalence and character of wet work in various wet work professions remain not fully covered. Self-reported data are widely used in studies of wet work although the validity of these remains uncertain. The objective of the present study is to provide information on validity of self-reported wet work exposure in different professions by comparing work place observations with self-reported data. METHODS: 114 workers from 15 various wet work professions were observed. The observations covered duration and frequency of wet work activities. The observed population as well as a non-observed population from each work place were given a questionnaire covering the same wet work activities. RESULTS: Correspondence analysis between self-reported and observed wet work showed that misclassification was larger regarding duration than frequency. 29.2% overestimated and 23.9% underestimated total wet work with more than 2 h/day. Professions with high wet work prevalence overestimated duration of wet work activities, but underestimated frequency. Females overestimated frequency, but not duration. The observed group (45%) significantly more often, than the non-observed group (32%), reported having more than 2 h of wet work/day (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6-4.9). Sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaire regarding total wet work in the observed population showed 51% sensitivity and 59% specificity. CONCLUSION: Over- and underestimation of wet work were found to be equally distributed. The correspondence analyses illustrate a noticeable misclassification between the estimations and the observations on all wet work variables, but largest for total wet work.