ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2023
Development and evaluation of the gender-specific CONSTANCES job exposure matrix for physical risk factors in France.
Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a gender-specific European job exposure matrix (EuroJEM) for physical workload and its validation against musculoskeletal pain.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a French job-exposure matrix for healthcare workers: JEM Soignances.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to construct and evaluate a gender-specific job exposure matrix (JEM) for 27 physical work exposures, based on self-report.
methodsWe constructed a JEM using questionnaire data on current physical exposures from 29 381 male and 35 900 female asymptomatic workers aged 18-69 years in the French CONSTANCES cohort study. We excluded workers with musculoskeletal pain to reduce potential reporting bias. We grouped 27 self-reported physical exposures using the French national job codes and stratified by gender. We compared individual and group-based exposures using the performance indicators Cohen's kappa (κ), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).
resultsJEM validation showed fair-to-moderate agreement (κ 0.21-0.60) for most physical exposures for both genders except for 'reach behind' (poor), 'bend neck' (poor), 'finger pinch' (poor), standing' (good), 'use computer screen' (good), and 'use keyboard or scanner' (good). We found the highest AUC for 'standing' (men 0.85/ women 0.87), 'kneel/squat' (men 0.80/women 0.81), 'use computer screen' (men/women 0.81), and 'use keyboard or scanner' (men 0.82/ women 0.84). The AUC was <0.60 for only three exposures: 'bend neck' (men 0.58/women 0.57), 'finger pinch' (men 0.56/ women 0.55), and 'reach behind' (men 0.54/ women 0.51).
conclusionThe constructed JEM validation measures were comparable for men and women for all exposures. Further research will examine the predictive ability of this gender-specific JEM for musculoskeletal disorders and the relevance of gender-stratification in this process, knowing accuracy of each exposure.
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.