Table 4.

The associations of residential proximity to the oil spill, work duration, and self-reported MI/fatal CHD: conditional and marginal hazard ratios (HR). GuLF STUDY 2010–2016

		Conditional model*	Marginal Model
	Cases / total N**	HR (95% CI)	HR (95% CI)
Exposure: Residential proximity to the spill		Among workers and nonworkers
No censoring weights
Away from spill	100/11872	ref	ref
Direct/indirect proximity	292/18590	1.37 (1.09, 1.74)	1.29 (1.00, 1.65)
IP censoring weighted
Away from spill	99/11859	ref	ref
Direct/indirect proximity	291/18577	1.39 (1.09 1.78)	1.30 (1.01, 1.67)
Exposure: Work duration		Among clean-up workers only
No censoring weights
1–30 days	29/2877	ref	ref
31–90 days	86/7385	1.23 (0.81, 1.88)	1.27 (0.83, 1.94)
91–180 days	121/8091	1.48 (0.99, 2.22)	1.43 (0.95, 2.15)
>180 days	73/5193	1.43 (0.93, 2.21)	1.36 (0.88, 2.11)
IP censoring weighted
1–30 days	29/2873	ref	ref
31–90 days	85/7374	1.20 (0.78, 1.84)	1.23 (0.79, 1.90)
91–180 days	121/8086	1.44 (0.95, 2.17)	1.38 (0.91, 2.10)
>180 days	72/5187	1.51 (0.96 2.35)	1.43 (0.91, 2.25)

HR= Hazard Ratio; 95% CI= 95% Confidence Interval Proximity to the oil spill is defined as living in, or adjacent to, a county or parish with coastline oiled during the spill.

^*Adjusts for gender, age, smoking, and education. Work duration models also adjusted for residential proximity to the spill.

^**Total N for non-censoring-weighted models is where all confounders (gender, age, smoking, education) are nonmissing. Total N for IP censoring-weighted-models is where all confounders and predictors of censoring (gender, age, smoking, education, maximum total hydrocarbon exposure, and work duration) are nonmissing.