Management of bias and conflict of interest among occupational exposure limit expert groups

Linda Schenk,Gunnar Johanson

doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104929

Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate policies and procedures for management of conflict of interest (CoI) and other sources of bias, implemented in Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) expert groups. First, we compiled procedural criteria applicable to OEL-setting, based on literature on CoI and systematic reviews. Second, we identified 58 global OEL-sources and sought the underlying expert groups and operating procedures. We identified eleven active groups, of which five have documented CoI policies. In all five, CoI management is based on declarations of interests (DoIs) and removal of experts from decisions in which they have an interest. Notable differences include publication of DoIs (three of five groups), limitation of DoI to current interests (two groups), quantitative limits for financial interests (none specified to ≥€10,000 per interest), control procedures for undisclosed CoI (one group), and procedures in case of discovery of undisclosed CoI (three groups). Methods to evaluate study quality are described by three groups, while reproducible and comprehensive strategies to identify and select data receive less attention. We conclude that procedures to manage CoI and bias are not broadly implemented, or at least not openly and transparently communicated. This lack of visible procedures is remarkable, considering OEL's impact on health and economy.

Highlights

Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) intend to protect workers from adverse health effects from workplace air pollutants
Departing from over fifty OEL sources we identified not more than eleven active expert groups, out of which only five have a published conflict of interest (CoI) policy
The CoI management is based on declarations of interests (DoIs) and removal of experts that have a financial or intellectual interest

Summary

Introduction

Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) intend to protect workers from adverse health effects from workplace air pollutants. There are several examples of ad hoc OEL derivations, such as researchers publishing a recommendation for a specific substance in a scientific journal. Purposes of these OELs and procedures for their derivation often differ. Whether strictly health-based or regulatory adjusted for socio-economic factors, OELs are generally based on an evaluation of the scientific knowledge about a substance performed by a group of experts in relevant fields, including in toxicology, epidemiology and occupational hygiene. The experts, having a scientific background may be employed by academia, governmental agencies or private companies. This raises possibilities for conflict of interest (CoI) and bias

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion