Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34895098›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2022

Observed vs. self-reported agricultural activities: Evaluating 24-hr recall in a pilot study.

Felicia Hung, Jonathan N Hofmann, Pabitra R Josse, Sarah J Locke, Emma M Stapleton, Gabriella Andreotti, Nicole C Deziel, Laura E Beane Freeman, Melissa C Friesen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Felicia HungEnvironmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Jonathan N HofmannOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Pabitra R JosseOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Sarah J LockeOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Emma M StapletonDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Gabriella AndreottiOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Nicole C DezielEnvironmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Laura E Beane FreemanOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Melissa C FriesenOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.

Funding

Studies of Occupational Cancer (Pesticides)ZIACP010119 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI BEANE FREEMAN, LAURA · 2009 to 2025
$46.1M
Occupational Exposure AssessmentZIACP010122 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI FRIESEN, MELISSA · 2009 to 2025
$8.6M
STUDIES OF OCCUPATIONAL CANCER--PESTICIDESZ01CP010119 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI ALAVANJA, MICHAEL · 1996 to 2008
$5.0M
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 CP010119Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010122
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Few studies have evaluated the validity of self-report of work activities because of challenges in obtaining objective measures. In this study, farmers' recall of the previous day's agricultural activities was compared to activities observed by field staff during air monitoring. Recall was assessed in 32 farmers from the Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect in Agriculture Study, a subset of a prospective cohort study. The farmers participated in 56 visits that comprised air monitoring the day before an interview. The answers for 14 agricultural activities were compared to activities observed by field staff during air monitoring (median duration 380 min, range 129-486). For each task, evaluated as yes/no, overall agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and kappa were calculated. Median prevalence of the 14 activities was 8% from observation and 13% from participants (range: 2-54%). Agreement was generally good to perfect, with a median overall agreement of 95% (range: 89-100%), median sensitivity of 84% (50-100%), median specificity of 95% (88-100%), and median kappa of 0.65 (0.31-1.0). Reasons for disagreement included activities occurring when the field staff was not present (i.e., milking cows), unclear timing notes that made it difficult to determine whether the activity occurred the day of and/or day before the interview, definition issues (i.e., participant included hauling in the definition of harvesting), and difficulty in observing details of an activity (i.e., whether hay was moldy). This study provides support for accurate participant recall the day after activities.

Indexed as

AgricultureAnimalsCattleHumansPilot ProjectsPrevalenceProspective StudiesSelf ReportFarming tasksoccupational questionnairesrecall validity

Identifiers

PMID34895098
PMCPMC9756316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.