Advertisement

Wet work exposure: comparison of observed and self-reported data

  • Tamara LundEmail author
  • Esben Meulengrath Flachs
  • Niels Erik Ebbehøj
  • Jens Peter Bonde
  • Tove Agner
Original Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Wet work is the most important exposure leading to occupational hand eczema; however, the prevalence and character of wet work in various wet work professions remain not fully covered. Self-reported data are widely used in studies of wet work although the validity of these remains uncertain. The objective of the present study is to provide information on validity of self-reported wet work exposure in different professions by comparing work place observations with self-reported data.

Methods

114 workers from 15 various wet work professions were observed. The observations covered duration and frequency of wet work activities. The observed population as well as a non-observed population from each work place were given a questionnaire covering the same wet work activities.

Results

Correspondence analysis between self-reported and observed wet work showed that misclassification was larger regarding duration than frequency. 29.2% overestimated and 23.9% underestimated total wet work with more than 2 h/day. Professions with high wet work prevalence overestimated duration of wet work activities, but underestimated frequency. Females overestimated frequency, but not duration. The observed group (45%) significantly more often, than the non-observed group (32%), reported having more than 2 h of wet work/day (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6–4.9). Sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaire regarding total wet work in the observed population showed 51% sensitivity and 59% specificity.

Conclusion

Over- and underestimation of wet work were found to be equally distributed. The correspondence analyses illustrate a noticeable misclassification between the estimations and the observations on all wet work variables, but largest for total wet work.

Keywords

Wet work Exposure Occupational hand eczema Occupational dermatitis Observational study Questionnaire 

Notes

Funding

This study is an independent research and funded by The Danish Working Environment Research Fund (Arbejdsmiljøforskningsfonden).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical statement

The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (project number BFH-2017-094). All methods were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. All participants received oral and written information, and informed consent was obtained. Regional ethical committee states that approval of the present study was not required.

References

  1. Anveden I, Meding B (2007) Skin exposure in geriatric care—a comparison between observation and self-assessment of exposure. Contact Dermat 57:253–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01211.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anveden I, Lidén C, Alderling M, Meding B (2006a) Self-reported skin exposure—validation of questions by observation. Contact Dermat 55:186–191.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00907.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anveden I, Wrangsjö K, Järvholm B, Meding B (2006b) Self-reported skin exposure—a population-based study. Contact Dermat 54:272–277.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2006.00823.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behroozy A, Keegel TG (2014) Wet-work exposure: a main risk factor for occupational hand dermatitis. Saf Health Work 5:175–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2014.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carøe TK, Ebbehøj N, Agner T (2013) A survey of exposures related to recognized occupational contact dermatitis in Denmark in 2010. Contact Dermat 70:56–62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carøe TK, Ebbehøj NE, Agner T (2017) Occupational dermatitis in hairdressers—influence of individual and environmental factors. Contact Dermat 76:146–150.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diepgen TL, Coenraads PJ (1999) The epidemiology of occupational contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 72:496–506.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004200050407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Chosidow O et al (2015) Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hand eczema. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 13:e1–e22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddg.12510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dulon M, Kähler B, Kirvel S et al (2015) Usage of gloves for hair shampooing in German hairdressing salons. J Occup Med Toxicol 10:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-015-0089-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flyvholm MA, Lindberg M (2006) OEESC-2005—summing up on the theme irritants and wet work. Contact Dermat 55:317–321.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00991.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2008) Risk resulting from skin contact—determination, evaluation, measures. In: Technical rules for hazardous substances. http://www.baua.de/nn_54598/en/Topics-from-A-to-Z/ Hazardous-Substances/TRGS/pdf/TRGS-401.pdf
  12. Hamnerius N, Svedman C, Bergendorff O et al (2018) Wet work exposure and hand eczema among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol 178:452–461.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ibler KS, Jemec GBE, Agner T (2012) Exposures related to hand eczema: a study of healthcare workers. Contact Dermat 66:247–253.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02027.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jungbauer FHW, Lensen GJ, Groothoff JW, Coenraads PJ (2004a) Exposure of the hands to wet work in nurses. Contact Dermat 50:225–229.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.0314.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jungbauer FHW, Van Der Harst JJ, Schuttelaar ML et al (2004b) Characteristics of wet work in the cleaning industry. Contact Dermat 51:131–134.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00421.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meding BB (2001) Validity of self-reports of hand eczema. Contact Dermat 45:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meding B, Anveden Berglind I, Alderling M et al (2016) Water exposure—challenging differences between occupations. Contact Dermat 74:22–28.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nielsen J (1996) The hands among female cleaners. Contact Dermat 34:284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Skoet R, Olsen J, Mathiesen B et al (2004) A survey of occupational hand eczema in Denmark. Contact Dermat 51:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00423.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smit HA, Van Rijssen A, Vandenbroucke JP, Coenraads PJ (1994) Susceptibility to and incidence of hand dermatitis in a cohort of apprentice hairdressers and nurses. Scand J Work Environ Heal 20:113–121.  https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Susitaival P, Flyvholm MA, Meding B et al (2003) Nordic Occupational Skin Questionnaire (NOSQ-2002): a new tool for surveying occupational skin diseases and exposure. Contact Dermat 49:70–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2003.00159.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Visser MJ, Verberk MM, van Dijk FJH et al (2014) Wet work and hand eczema in apprentice nurses; part I of a prospective cohort study. Contact Dermat 70:44–55.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weistenhöfer W, Wacker M, Bernet F et al (2015) Occlusive gloves and skin conditions: is there a problem? Results of a cross-sectional study in a semiconductor company. Br J Dermatol 172:1058–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.13481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyBispebjerg University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Occupational- and Environmental MedicineBispebjerg University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations