![Sample our Earth Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5930/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Earth-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe experts' decision processes leading to measurements of occupational chemical exposure. Safety engineers, clinical occupational hygienists, and work environment inspectors (four from each group) were interviewed according to a semistructured scheme. We analyzed: (i) perceived triggers for measurements, (ii) the experts' decision criteria for performing measurements when there was a trigger, and (iii) sampling strategy. Regarding triggers, all safety engineers reported a “request” from, for example, an employer; all work environment inspectors reported “legal demands;” and all clinical occupational hygienists reported “symptoms among workers.” As a decision criterion, all the interviewees reported that they measured only if they expected sufficiently high levels. The results of the present study highlight factors that trigger measurements and are of importance in determining whether measurements will be performed. These factors appear to be related to the expert's professional role and may bias the assessment of exposure. Thus, when using data from routine measurements done by experts, the possibility of a bias needs to be considered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Work Life Research. We thank the safety engineers, occupational hygienists, and work environment inspectors who gave us of their valuable time for interviews. We would also like to thank Ingrid Liljelind, Kåre Eriksson, and Bo Strangert for their support and valuable comments.
Notes
A Scientific support for a relation between symptoms and agents.
B Measurement should give new information.
C Unchanged work environment in clinical cases.
D Employer willing to take preventive action.
E Need to influence employer and employee.