Show simple item record

hal.structure.identifierEHESP-Irset [EHESP-Irset]
dc.contributor.authorCounil, Emilie
HAL ID: 19905
hal.structure.identifierInstitut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Sciences Sociales [IRISSO]
dc.contributor.authorHenry, Emmanuel
HAL ID: 13076
ORCID: 0000-0002-9262-4421
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-26T14:38:29Z
dc.date.available2019-07-26T14:38:29Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn2196-2995
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/19575
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectAttributable fractionen
dc.subjectCarcinomaen
dc.subjectOccupational exposuresen
dc.subjectHealth inequitiesen
dc.subjectUndone scienceen
dc.subject.ddc306.3en
dc.titleIs It Time to Rethink the Way We Assess the Burden of Work-Related Cancer?en
dc.typeArticle accepté pour publication ou publié
dc.description.abstractenPurpose of Review Population attributable fractions (PAFs) are increasingly used for setting cancer prevention priorities. Our review aims, first, to gather published estimates of the percentage of cancer attributed to causal agents in the workplace and, second, to analyze them from the perspective of their potential effects on population health inequities.Recent Findings The estimates generally ranged from less than 2% to more than 8%, with an average of 4–5%. While most authors acknowledge that exposures concentrate in lower-socioeconomic status and more vulnerable workers, the literature has never considered the occupational group as a source of variation in the calculations. This knowledge gap is linked to the paucity of data describing the occupational patterning of exposures and cancer. More globally, the social gradient in cancer is often interpreted in the light of behavioral factors alone, a tendency linked by historians to the very foundations of modern epidemiology. Yet, there is accumulated evidence that work affects health and the risk of death through different pathways, which are also relevant to cancer. Summary While the epidemiologic literature addressed conceptual and validity issues surrounding PAFs, it seldom questioned their potential impacts. There is in particular a lack of consideration of factors beyond individual behaviors and a paucity of attention to population health inequities. We hence propose to further the discipline’s reflexivity by changing the focus, scope, and metrics in order to assess the burden of work-related cancer in a way that is more meaningful to the most disadvantaged workers.en
dc.relation.isversionofjnlnameCurrent Epidemiology Reports
dc.relation.isversionofjnlvol6en
dc.relation.isversionofjnlissue2en
dc.relation.isversionofjnldate2019
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpages138-147en
dc.relation.isversionofdoi10.1007/s40471-019-00190-9en
dc.identifier.urlsitehttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02127255en
dc.subject.ddclabelSociologie économiqueen
dc.relation.forthcomingnonen
dc.relation.forthcomingprintnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenonen
dc.description.halcandidatenonen
dc.description.readershiprechercheen
dc.description.audienceInternationalen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewednonen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewednonen
dc.date.updated2019-06-09T20:57:53Z
hal.author.functionaut
hal.author.functionaut


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record