4.5 Article

Paternal occupation and birth defects: findings from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
Volume 69, Issue 8, Pages 534-542

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2011-100372

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U50CCU422096]
  2. US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P30ES10126]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives Several epidemiological studies have suggested that certain paternal occupations may be associated with an increased prevalence of birth defects in offspring. Using data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, the authors investigated the association between paternal occupation and birth defects in a case-control study of cases comprising over 60 different types of birth defects (n=9998) and non-malformed controls (n=4066) with dates of delivery between 1997 and 2004. Methods Using paternal occupational histories reported by mothers via telephone interview, jobs were systematically classified into 63 groups based on shared exposure profiles within occupation and industry. Data were analysed using Bayesian logistic regression with a hierarchical prior for dependent shrinkage to stabilise estimation with sparse data. Results Several occupations were associated with an increased prevalence of various birth defect categories, including mathematical, physical and computer scientists; artists; photographers and photo processors; food service workers; landscapers and groundskeepers; hairdressers and cosmetologists; office and administrative support workers; sawmill workers; petroleum and gas workers; chemical workers; printers; material moving equipment operators; and motor vehicle operators. Conclusions Findings from this study might be used to identify specific occupations worthy of further investigation and to generate hypotheses about chemical or physical exposures common to such occupations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available