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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Annals of occupational hygiene 2002-03, Vol.46 (2), p.219-227
Hauptverfasser: LAZOVICH, DEANN, MURRAY, DAVID M., BROSSEAU, LISA M., PARKER, DAVID L., MILTON, F. THOMAS, DUGAN, SIOBHAN K.
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 &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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