Abstract
Objectives: To examine the temporal relationship and specificity between self-reports on the indoor environment at work and symptoms that are traditionally connected with the sick building syndrome (SBS). Methods: This questionnaire study used a prospective full panel design as regards self-reports on exposure and outcome. At the baseline, the sample comprised 2,164 adults selected randomly from the general population. Of these 1,402, who were still working and living in the same place, completed a second questionnaire a year later. Health measures were symptoms that are traditionally connected with the SBS, as well as some “dummy” symptoms that hardly can be causally related to the indoor environment. The associations between self-reports on the indoor environment and these symptom groups were assessed both in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, the latter examining the normal direction that exposure leads to symptoms as well as the reverse order: that symptoms lead to perceived exposure. Results: In cross-sectional analyses, the indoor environment factors were associated equally with SBS symptoms and with “dummy” symptoms. In longitudinal analyses, only few of the indoor environment factors predicted the development of any of the symptom groups. However, both the SBS symptoms and the “dummy” symptoms were risk factors for beginning to report exposures in the indoor environment. Conclusions: Symptoms predict future reports on exposures in the indoor environment indicating that it is difficult to determine what existed first: the outcome or the exposure. In addition, the perceived indoor environment is associated not only with the traditional SBS symptoms, but also with symptoms that cannot be physiologically linked to the indoor environment. These results suggest that there is a risk of reporting bias when assessing non-specific symptoms. Thus, many of the associations found in previous cross-sectional studies on SBS symptoms and indoor environment factors may possibly be explained by reporting bias.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bachmann MO, Myers JE (1995) Influences on sick building syndrome symptoms in three buildings. Soc Sci Med 40:245–251
Berglund B, Gunnarsson AG (2000) Relationships between occupant personality and the sick building syndrome explored. Indoor Air 10:152–169
Bjornsson E, Janson C, Norback D, Boman G (1998) Symptoms related to the sick building syndrome in a general population sample: associations with atopy, bronchial hyper-responsiveness and anxiety. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2:1023–1028
Brauer C, Mikkelsen S (2003) The context of a study influences the reporting of symptoms. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:621–624
Brauer C, Kolstad HA, Orbaek P, Mikkelsen S (2005) No consistent risk factor pattern for symptoms related to the sick building syndrome: a prospective population based study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (this issue)
Dales RE, Spitzer WO, Suissa S, Schechter MT, Tousignant P, Steinmetz N (1989) Respiratory health of a population living downwind from natural gas refineries. Am Rev Respir Dis 139:595–600
Davidoff AL, Fogarty L (1994) Psychogenic origins of multiple chemical sensitivities syndrome: a critical review of the research literature. Arch Environ Health 49:316–325
Handal G, Leiner MA, Cabrera M, Straus DC (2004) Children symptoms before and after knowing about an indoor fungal contamination. Indoor Air 14:87–91
Hedge A, Burge PS, Robertson A, Harris-Bass J (1989) Work-related illness in offices: a proposed model of the “sick building syndrome”. Environ Int 15:143–158
Hedge A, Erickson WA, Rubin G (1995) Individual and occupational correlates of the sick building syndrome. Indoor Air 5:10–21
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York
Huss A, Kuchenhoff J, Bircher A, Heller P, Kuster H, Niederer M, Scartazzini G, Schwarzenbach S, Waeber R, Wegmann L, Braun-Fahrlander C (2004) Symptoms attributed to the environment—a systematic, interdisciplinary assessment. Int J Hyg Environ Health 207:245–254
Hutchinson CT, Powell HR, Hardin BD, Robbins CA, Saxon A, Kelman BJ (2003) The growing hazard of mold litigation. Civil Justice Report 8. U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, Washington, pp 1–67
Jackson CA, Spurgeon A (2001) Symptom-reporting following occupational exposure to organophosphate pesticides in sheep dip, Research report no. 371, University of Birmingham, HSE Books, pp. 1–34
Johansson SG, Hourihane JO, Bousquet J, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C, Dreborg S, Haahtela T, Kowalski ML, Mygind N, Ring J, van Cauwenberge P, Hage-Hamsten M, Wuthrich B (2001) A revised nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI position statement from the EAACI nomenclature task force. Allergy 56:813–824
Lees-Haley PR, Brown RS (1992) Biases in perception and reporting following a perceived toxic exposure. Percept Mot Skills 75:531–544
Levallois P (2002) Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field exposure: a review of the literature. Environ Health Perspect 110(Suppl 4):613–618
Lundin L (1999) Allergic and non-allergic students’ perception of the same high school environment. Indoor Air 9:92–102
Moffatt S, Mulloli TP, Bhopal R, Foy C, Phillimore P (2000) An exploration of awareness bias in two environmental epidemiology studies. Epidemiology 11:199–208
Neugebauer R, Ng S (1990) Differential recall as a source of bias in epidemiologic research. J Clin Epidemiol 43:1337–1341
Paddle GM, Harrington JM (2000) Environmental epidemiology—strengths and weaknesses. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 73:7–14
Pirhonen I, Nevalainen A, Husman T, Pekkanen J (1996) Home dampness, moulds and their influence on respiratory infections and symptoms in adults in Finland. Eur Respir J 9:2618–2622
Platt SD, Martin CJ, Hunt SM, Lewis CW (1989) Damp housing, mould growth, and symptomatic health state. BMJ 298:1673–1678
Roht LH, Vernon SW, Weir FW, Pier SM, Sullivan P, Reed LJ (1985) Community exposure to hazardous waste disposal sites: assessing reporting bias. Am J Epidemiol 122:418–433
Runeson R, Norback D, Stattin H (2003) Symptoms and sense of coherence—a follow-up study of personnel from workplace buildings with indoor air problems. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:29–38
Setterlind S, Larsson G (1995) The stress profile: a psychosocial approach to measuring stress. Stress Med 11:85–92
Sparks PJ (2000) Idiopathic environmental intolerances: overview. Occup Med 15:497–510
Spurgeon A, Gompertz D, Harrington JM (1996) Modifiers of non-specific symptoms in occupational and environmental syndromes. Occup Environ Med 53:361–366
Spurgeon A, Gompertz D, Harrington JM (1997) Non-specific symptoms in response to hazard exposure in the workplace. J Psychosom Res 43:43–49
Terr AI (1986) Environmental illness. A clinical review of 50 cases. Arch Intern Med 146:145–149
Thorn A (1998) Building-related health problems: reflections on different symptom prevalence among pupils and teachers. Int J Circumpolar Health 57:249–256
Wallace LA, Nelson CJ, Highsmith R, Dunterman G (1993) Association of personel and workplace characteristics with health, comfort and odor: a survey of 3948 office workers in three buildings. Indoor Air 3:193–205
Acknowledgements
This study received financial support from The Danish Working Environment Council and the Danish Medical Research Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brauer, C., Kolstad, H., Ørbæk, P. et al. The sick building syndrome: a chicken and egg situation?. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79, 465–471 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0075-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0075-2