Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 25;77(6):357–367. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2019-105880

Table 2.

Relative frequencies of exposure assessment methods (EAM) according to study design extracted from articles on occupational pesticide exposures and various health outcomes

Study design Cross-sectional Cohort (prospective) Cohort (retrospective) Case-control
N % N % N % N %
Number of articles 430 33.8 417 32.8 19 1.5 375 29.5
Articles applying>1 EAM 35 8.1 85 20.4 2 10.5 67 17.9
Articles not reporting EAM 6 1.4 3 0.7 1 0.3
Number of EAM occurrences in studies 466 31.4 505 34.1 20 1.3 447 30.1
EAM:
Indirect EAM 349 74.9 385 76.2 19 95 430 96.2
Direct EAM 111 23.8 117 23.2 1 5 16 3.6
EAM not reported 6 1.3 3 0.6 1 0.2
Indirect EAM:
Job title 86 18.5 60 11.9 8 40 27 6
Expert case-by-case 10 2.1 20 4 1 5 50 11.2
Self-reported exposure:
self-administered
or interview administered questionnaire
209 44.8 146 28.9 3 15 212 47.4
Self-reported job history:
self-administered
or interview administered questionnaire
14 3 11 2.2 76 17
Registers 8 1.7 57 11.3 5 25 14 3.1
JEM 3 0.6 18 3.6 2 10 45 10.1
CEM 2 0.4 1 0.2
TEM 1 0.2
Algorithm/model 12 2.5 58 11.5 4 0.9
Index 6 1.2
Score 1 0.2 2 0.3
Metric 1 0.2
Environmental monitoring 6 1.3 4 0.8
GIS 2 0.4
Direct EAM:
Biomonitoring:
Blood 80 17.2 77 15.2 1 5 13 2.9
Urine 29 6.2 35 6.9 3 0.7
Dermal
Hair 1 0.2
Adipose tissue 3 0.6
Personal air sampling 2 0.4 1 0.2

CEM, crop exposure matrices; GIS, geographical information systems; JEM, job exposure matrices; TEM, task exposure matrices.