Abstract
Two common practices of occupational mortality studies have no model in experimentation: (a) the use of the "general population" as a reference population and (b) the use of the total number of deaths as a surrogate for the population-time of follow-up. The former tends not to secure validity in terms of (i) comparability of effects, ie, identity of the extraneous effects of the compared experiences; (ii) comparability of populations, ie, absence of intractable confounding; and (iii) comparability of information, ie, identity of the certification of deaths from the illness of interest for the contrasted populations. The use of a carefully selected, occupational reference population is necessary for all three types of comparability. When deaths from other (auxiliary) diseases are used to estimate the relative magnitudes of the compared populations, careful selectivity is again called for. With respect to auxiliary causes of death, also, the compared occupational populations must satisfy all three aspects of comparability, with the added requirement that the exposure under study have no effect. The "healthy worker effect" is the result of failure to use comparable reference populations in occupational mortality studies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
