ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2014
Identifying gender differences in reported occupational information from three US population-based case-control studies.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workplace Health Promotion and Mental Health: Three-Year Findings from Partnering Healthy@Work.PloS one · 2016Trial
- A mediation analysis of meteorological factors on the association between ambient carbon monoxide and tuberculosis outpatients visits.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Identifying occupational health inequities in the absence of suitable data: are there inequities in access to adequate bathrooms in US workplaces?Occupational and environmental medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- Work-related injury burden, workers' compensation claim filing, and barriers: Results from a statewide survey of janitors.American journal of industrial medicine · 2022Article
- Occupation and risk of knee osteoarthritis and knee replacement: A longitudinal, multiple-cohort study.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2020Article
- Agreement in Occupational Exposures Between Men and Women Using Retrospective Assessments by Expert Coders.Annals of work exposures and health · 2018Article
- Thyroid cancer among female workers in Korea, 2007-2015.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesGrowing evidence suggests that gender-blind 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-specific 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.
methodsWe 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 χ(2) and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsObserved 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.