Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26764244›Full record

ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2016

Wishful Thinking? Inside the Black Box of Exposure Assessment.

Annemarie Money, Christine Robinson, Raymond Agius, Frank de Vocht

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Annemarie Money1.Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Institute of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
Christine Robinson1.Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Institute of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
Raymond Agius1.Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Institute of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
Frank de Vocht2.School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK frank.devocht@bristol.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision-making processes used by experts when undertaking occupational exposure assessment are relatively unknown, but it is often assumed that there is a common underlying method that experts employ. However, differences in training and experience of assessors make it unlikely that one general method for expert assessment would exist. Therefore, there are concerns about formalizing, validating, and comparing expert estimates within and between studies that are difficult, if not impossible, to characterize. Heuristics on the other hand (the processes involved in decision making) have been extensively studied. Heuristics are deployed by everyone as short-cuts to make the often complex process of decision-making simpler, quicker, and less burdensome. Experts' assessments are often subject to various simplifying heuristics as a way to reach a decision in the absence of sufficient data. Therefore, investigating the underlying heuristics or decision-making processes involved may help to shed light on the 'black box' of exposure assessment.

methodsA mixed method study was conducted utilizing both a web-based exposure assessment exercise incorporating quantitative and semiqualitative elements of data collection, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with exposure assessors. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsTwenty-five experts completed the web-based exposure assessment exercise and 8 of these 25 were randomly selected to participate in the follow-up interview. Familiar key themes relating to the exposure assessment exercise emerged; 'intensity'; 'probability'; 'agent'; 'process'; and 'duration' of exposure. However, an important aspect of the detailed follow-up interviews revealed a lack of structure and order with which participants described their decision making. Participants mostly described some form of an iterative process, heavily relying on the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, which differed between experts.

conclusionIn spite of having undertaken comparable training (in occupational hygiene or exposure assessment), experts use different methods to assess exposure. Decision making appears to be an iterative process with heavy reliance on the key heuristic of anchoring and adjustment. Using multiple experts to assess exposure while providing some form of anchoring scenario to build from, and additional training in understanding the impact of simple heuristics on the process of decision making, is likely to produce a more methodical approach to assessment; thereby improving consistency and transparency in expert exposure assessment.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultFemaleHeuristicsHumansInternetMaleOccupational ExposureQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentThinkingexpert assessmentexposure assessmentexposure assessment methodologyexposure estimationhygiene assessmentqualitative methodsretrospective exposure assessment

Identifiers

PMID26764244
PMCPMC4815939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.