Sample Size Considerations for Studies of Intervention Efficacy in the Occupational Setting
Objective. Due to a shared environment and similarities among workers within a worksite, the strongest analytical design to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to reduce occupational health or safety hazards is to randomly assign worksites, not workers, to the intervention and comparison condit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Annals of occupational hygiene 2002-03, Vol.46 (2), p.219-227 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 227 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 219 |
container_title | The Annals of occupational hygiene |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | LAZOVICH, DEANN MURRAY, DAVID M. BROSSEAU, LISA M. PARKER, DAVID L. MILTON, F. THOMAS DUGAN, SIOBHAN K. |
description | Objective. Due to a shared environment and similarities among workers within a worksite, the strongest analytical design to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to reduce occupational health or safety hazards is to randomly assign worksites, not workers, to the intervention and comparison conditions. Statistical methods are well described for estimating the sample size when the unit of assignment is a group but these methods have not been applied in the evaluation of occupational health and safety interventions. We review and apply the statistical methods for group-randomized trials in planning a study to evaluate the effectiveness of technical/behavioral interventions to reduce wood dust levels among small woodworking businesses. Methods. We conducted a pilot study in five small woodworking businesses to estimate variance components between and within worksites and between and within workers. In each worksite, 8 h time-weighted dust concentrations were obtained for each production employee on between two and five occasions. With these data, we estimated the parameters necessary to calculate the percent change in dust concentrations that we could detect (α = 0.05, power = 80%) for a range of worksites per condition, workers per worksite and repeat measurements per worker. Results. The mean wood dust concentration across woodworking businesses was 4.53 mg/m3. The measure of similarity among workers within a woodworking business was large (intraclass correlation = 0.5086). Repeated measurements within a worker were weakly correlated (r = 0.1927) while repeated measurements within a worksite were strongly correlated (r = 0.8925). The dominant factor in the sample size calculation was the number of worksites per condition, with the number of workers per worksite playing a lesser role. We also observed that increasing the number of repeat measurements per person had little benefit given the low within-worker correlation in our data. We found that 30 worksites per condition and 10 workers per worksite would give us 80% power to detect a reduction of ∼30% in wood dust levels (α = 0.05). Conclusions. Our results demonstrate the application of the group-randomized trials methodology to evaluate interventions to reduce occupational hazards. The methodology is widely applicable and not limited to the context of wood dust reduction. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/annhyg/mef028 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_29868500</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>29868500</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c555t-6e588d4f42d7a88ff3e4a6d089e8ece57e085c0bdabc1cbbcd8aa43fbd6f5ebf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0c9vFCEUB3BiNHatHr0aLvY2FgYYmKOu_ZU0aczapKkHwsCjRWeYFZjG7V_v1N24x5545H3eI-GL0HtKPlHSsmMT4_3m7ngAT2r1Ai0ol6JitKlfogUhhFVcSXWA3uT8c75y1tLX6IDWRHLC6AL9WJlh3QNehUfAyzHm4CCZEuYK-zHhVZlcgIxHjy9igfQA8amJT7wP1tgNDhGXe8BX1k7rf3OmxysoJcS7t-iVN32Gd7vzEF2fnnxfnleXV2cXy8-XlRVClKoBoZTjntdOGqW8Z8BN44hqQYEFIYEoYUnnTGep7TrrlDGc-c41XkDn2SE62u5dp_H3BLnoIWQLfW8ijFPWdasaJea_eB42TCrePgup4lwQqWZYbaFNY84JvF6nMJi00ZTop3z0Nh-9zWf2H3aLp24At9e7QGbwcQdMtqb3yUQb8t4xUTeKs_3DIRf4879v0i_dSCaFPr-51Ux9WX6lt6f6G_sLmour3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>18445078</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sample Size Considerations for Studies of Intervention Efficacy in the Occupational Setting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>LAZOVICH, DEANN ; MURRAY, DAVID M. ; BROSSEAU, LISA M. ; PARKER, DAVID L. ; MILTON, F. THOMAS ; DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.</creator><creatorcontrib>LAZOVICH, DEANN ; MURRAY, DAVID M. ; BROSSEAU, LISA M. ; PARKER, DAVID L. ; MILTON, F. THOMAS ; DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective. Due to a shared environment and similarities among workers within a worksite, the strongest analytical design to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to reduce occupational health or safety hazards is to randomly assign worksites, not workers, to the intervention and comparison conditions. Statistical methods are well described for estimating the sample size when the unit of assignment is a group but these methods have not been applied in the evaluation of occupational health and safety interventions. We review and apply the statistical methods for group-randomized trials in planning a study to evaluate the effectiveness of technical/behavioral interventions to reduce wood dust levels among small woodworking businesses. Methods. We conducted a pilot study in five small woodworking businesses to estimate variance components between and within worksites and between and within workers. In each worksite, 8 h time-weighted dust concentrations were obtained for each production employee on between two and five occasions. With these data, we estimated the parameters necessary to calculate the percent change in dust concentrations that we could detect (α = 0.05, power = 80%) for a range of worksites per condition, workers per worksite and repeat measurements per worker. Results. The mean wood dust concentration across woodworking businesses was 4.53 mg/m3. The measure of similarity among workers within a woodworking business was large (intraclass correlation = 0.5086). Repeated measurements within a worker were weakly correlated (r = 0.1927) while repeated measurements within a worksite were strongly correlated (r = 0.8925). The dominant factor in the sample size calculation was the number of worksites per condition, with the number of workers per worksite playing a lesser role. We also observed that increasing the number of repeat measurements per person had little benefit given the low within-worker correlation in our data. We found that 30 worksites per condition and 10 workers per worksite would give us 80% power to detect a reduction of ∼30% in wood dust levels (α = 0.05). Conclusions. Our results demonstrate the application of the group-randomized trials methodology to evaluate interventions to reduce occupational hazards. The methodology is widely applicable and not limited to the context of wood dust reduction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4878</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1475-3162</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-3162</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mef028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12074031</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AOHYA3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; Atmospheric pollution ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chemical and industrial products toxicology. Toxic occupational diseases ; community trials ; Dust - adverse effects ; Dust - analysis ; Exact sciences and technology ; Humans ; Indoor pollution and occupational exposure ; Inorganic dusts (pneumoconiosises) and organic dusts (byssinosis etc.) ; interventions ; Medical sciences ; Occupational Exposure - prevention & control ; occupational health and safety ; Pilot Projects ; Pollution ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods ; Research Design ; Sample Size ; statistical methods ; Statistics as Topic ; Toxicology ; Wood</subject><ispartof>The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2002-03, Vol.46 (2), p.219-227</ispartof><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c555t-6e588d4f42d7a88ff3e4a6d089e8ece57e085c0bdabc1cbbcd8aa43fbd6f5ebf3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=13526843$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12074031$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>LAZOVICH, DEANN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MURRAY, DAVID M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BROSSEAU, LISA M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PARKER, DAVID L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MILTON, F. THOMAS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.</creatorcontrib><title>Sample Size Considerations for Studies of Intervention Efficacy in the Occupational Setting</title><title>The Annals of occupational hygiene</title><addtitle>Ann Occup Hyg</addtitle><description>Objective. Due to a shared environment and similarities among workers within a worksite, the strongest analytical design to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to reduce occupational health or safety hazards is to randomly assign worksites, not workers, to the intervention and comparison conditions. Statistical methods are well described for estimating the sample size when the unit of assignment is a group but these methods have not been applied in the evaluation of occupational health and safety interventions. We review and apply the statistical methods for group-randomized trials in planning a study to evaluate the effectiveness of technical/behavioral interventions to reduce wood dust levels among small woodworking businesses. Methods. We conducted a pilot study in five small woodworking businesses to estimate variance components between and within worksites and between and within workers. In each worksite, 8 h time-weighted dust concentrations were obtained for each production employee on between two and five occasions. With these data, we estimated the parameters necessary to calculate the percent change in dust concentrations that we could detect (α = 0.05, power = 80%) for a range of worksites per condition, workers per worksite and repeat measurements per worker. Results. The mean wood dust concentration across woodworking businesses was 4.53 mg/m3. The measure of similarity among workers within a woodworking business was large (intraclass correlation = 0.5086). Repeated measurements within a worker were weakly correlated (r = 0.1927) while repeated measurements within a worksite were strongly correlated (r = 0.8925). The dominant factor in the sample size calculation was the number of worksites per condition, with the number of workers per worksite playing a lesser role. We also observed that increasing the number of repeat measurements per person had little benefit given the low within-worker correlation in our data. We found that 30 worksites per condition and 10 workers per worksite would give us 80% power to detect a reduction of ∼30% in wood dust levels (α = 0.05). Conclusions. Our results demonstrate the application of the group-randomized trials methodology to evaluate interventions to reduce occupational hazards. The methodology is widely applicable and not limited to the context of wood dust reduction.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Atmospheric pollution</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chemical and industrial products toxicology. Toxic occupational diseases</subject><subject>community trials</subject><subject>Dust - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dust - analysis</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Indoor pollution and occupational exposure</subject><subject>Inorganic dusts (pneumoconiosises) and organic dusts (byssinosis etc.)</subject><subject>interventions</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - prevention & control</subject><subject>occupational health and safety</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>Wood</subject><issn>0003-4878</issn><issn>1475-3162</issn><issn>1475-3162</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0c9vFCEUB3BiNHatHr0aLvY2FgYYmKOu_ZU0aczapKkHwsCjRWeYFZjG7V_v1N24x5545H3eI-GL0HtKPlHSsmMT4_3m7ngAT2r1Ai0ol6JitKlfogUhhFVcSXWA3uT8c75y1tLX6IDWRHLC6AL9WJlh3QNehUfAyzHm4CCZEuYK-zHhVZlcgIxHjy9igfQA8amJT7wP1tgNDhGXe8BX1k7rf3OmxysoJcS7t-iVN32Gd7vzEF2fnnxfnleXV2cXy8-XlRVClKoBoZTjntdOGqW8Z8BN44hqQYEFIYEoYUnnTGep7TrrlDGc-c41XkDn2SE62u5dp_H3BLnoIWQLfW8ijFPWdasaJea_eB42TCrePgup4lwQqWZYbaFNY84JvF6nMJi00ZTop3z0Nh-9zWf2H3aLp24At9e7QGbwcQdMtqb3yUQb8t4xUTeKs_3DIRf4879v0i_dSCaFPr-51Ux9WX6lt6f6G_sLmour3g</recordid><startdate>20020301</startdate><enddate>20020301</enddate><creator>LAZOVICH, DEANN</creator><creator>MURRAY, DAVID M.</creator><creator>BROSSEAU, LISA M.</creator><creator>PARKER, DAVID L.</creator><creator>MILTON, F. THOMAS</creator><creator>DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020301</creationdate><title>Sample Size Considerations for Studies of Intervention Efficacy in the Occupational Setting</title><author>LAZOVICH, DEANN ; MURRAY, DAVID M. ; BROSSEAU, LISA M. ; PARKER, DAVID L. ; MILTON, F. THOMAS ; DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c555t-6e588d4f42d7a88ff3e4a6d089e8ece57e085c0bdabc1cbbcd8aa43fbd6f5ebf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Atmospheric pollution</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chemical and industrial products toxicology. Toxic occupational diseases</topic><topic>community trials</topic><topic>Dust - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dust - analysis</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Indoor pollution and occupational exposure</topic><topic>Inorganic dusts (pneumoconiosises) and organic dusts (byssinosis etc.)</topic><topic>interventions</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - prevention & control</topic><topic>occupational health and safety</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>Wood</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>LAZOVICH, DEANN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MURRAY, DAVID M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BROSSEAU, LISA M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PARKER, DAVID L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MILTON, F. THOMAS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Annals of occupational hygiene</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>LAZOVICH, DEANN</au><au>MURRAY, DAVID M.</au><au>BROSSEAU, LISA M.</au><au>PARKER, DAVID L.</au><au>MILTON, F. THOMAS</au><au>DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sample Size Considerations for Studies of Intervention Efficacy in the Occupational Setting</atitle><jtitle>The Annals of occupational hygiene</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Occup Hyg</addtitle><date>2002-03-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>219</spage><epage>227</epage><pages>219-227</pages><issn>0003-4878</issn><issn>1475-3162</issn><eissn>1475-3162</eissn><coden>AOHYA3</coden><abstract>Objective. Due to a shared environment and similarities among workers within a worksite, the strongest analytical design to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to reduce occupational health or safety hazards is to randomly assign worksites, not workers, to the intervention and comparison conditions. Statistical methods are well described for estimating the sample size when the unit of assignment is a group but these methods have not been applied in the evaluation of occupational health and safety interventions. We review and apply the statistical methods for group-randomized trials in planning a study to evaluate the effectiveness of technical/behavioral interventions to reduce wood dust levels among small woodworking businesses. Methods. We conducted a pilot study in five small woodworking businesses to estimate variance components between and within worksites and between and within workers. In each worksite, 8 h time-weighted dust concentrations were obtained for each production employee on between two and five occasions. With these data, we estimated the parameters necessary to calculate the percent change in dust concentrations that we could detect (α = 0.05, power = 80%) for a range of worksites per condition, workers per worksite and repeat measurements per worker. Results. The mean wood dust concentration across woodworking businesses was 4.53 mg/m3. The measure of similarity among workers within a woodworking business was large (intraclass correlation = 0.5086). Repeated measurements within a worker were weakly correlated (r = 0.1927) while repeated measurements within a worksite were strongly correlated (r = 0.8925). The dominant factor in the sample size calculation was the number of worksites per condition, with the number of workers per worksite playing a lesser role. We also observed that increasing the number of repeat measurements per person had little benefit given the low within-worker correlation in our data. We found that 30 worksites per condition and 10 workers per worksite would give us 80% power to detect a reduction of ∼30% in wood dust levels (α = 0.05). Conclusions. Our results demonstrate the application of the group-randomized trials methodology to evaluate interventions to reduce occupational hazards. The methodology is widely applicable and not limited to the context of wood dust reduction.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>12074031</pmid><doi>10.1093/annhyg/mef028</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-4878 |
ispartof | The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2002-03, Vol.46 (2), p.219-227 |
issn | 0003-4878 1475-3162 1475-3162 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_29868500 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Applied sciences Atmospheric pollution Biological and medical sciences Chemical and industrial products toxicology. Toxic occupational diseases community trials Dust - adverse effects Dust - analysis Exact sciences and technology Humans Indoor pollution and occupational exposure Inorganic dusts (pneumoconiosises) and organic dusts (byssinosis etc.) interventions Medical sciences Occupational Exposure - prevention & control occupational health and safety Pilot Projects Pollution Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods Research Design Sample Size statistical methods Statistics as Topic Toxicology Wood |
title | Sample Size Considerations for Studies of Intervention Efficacy in the Occupational Setting |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T01%3A41%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sample%20Size%20Considerations%20for%20Studies%20of%20Intervention%20Efficacy%20in%20the%20Occupational%20Setting&rft.jtitle=The%20Annals%20of%20occupational%20hygiene&rft.au=LAZOVICH,%20DEANN&rft.date=2002-03-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=219&rft.epage=227&rft.pages=219-227&rft.issn=0003-4878&rft.eissn=1475-3162&rft.coden=AOHYA3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/annhyg/mef028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E29868500%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=18445078&rft_id=info:pmid/12074031&rfr_iscdi=true |