4.6 Article

The Healthy Worker Effect in Cancer Incidence Studies

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 177, Issue 11, Pages 1218-1224

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws373

Keywords

cancer incidence; cohort studies; educational level; healthy worker effect; mortality

Funding

  1. Norwegian EXTRA Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation (EXTRA funds) through the Norwegian Cancer Society
  2. Research Council of Norway (Programme for Optimal Management of Petroleum Resources (PETROMAKS))
  3. Department of Health (UniHealth) of UniResearch AS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Use of the general population as a reference might cause serious underestimation of the risk of cancer in working populations because of the healthy worker effect. Using incidence rates, we studied how this underestimation varied according to subtypes of cancer by comparing a large cohort of randomly selected Norwegian workers hired between 1981 and 2003 (n 366,114) with the general Norwegian population. The cohort was linked to the Cancer Registry of Norway, including all new cancer cases (n 11,271) reported up to 2003. We found marked potential for the healthy worker effect for overall cancer incidence in male workers (standardized incidence ratio (SIR) 0.91, 95 confidence interval: 0.89, 0.93) but not in female workers (SIR 0.99, 95 confidence interval: 0.95, 1.03). A statistically significantly lower incidence was found among men for cancers of the head and neck (SIR 0.78), lung (SIR 0.81), prostate (SIR 0.93), kidney (SIR 0.83), and bladder (SIR 0.77) and for leukemia (SIR 0.80), whereas an increased incidence was found for malignant melanoma among both men (SIR 1.09) and women (SIR 1.29) and for ovarian cancer in women (SIR 1.32). Depending on the type of cancer being studied, marked potential exists for both underestimation and overestimation of cancer risk when the general population is used as the reference for studies of worker populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available