Do outcomes differ between work and non-work-related injury in a universal injury compensation system? Findings from the New Zealand Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study

BMC Public Health

Sarah Derrett²  Shanthi Ameratunga¹  John Langley³  Gabrielle Davie³  Rebbecca Lilley³ 

[1]Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

[2]School of Health and Social Services, College of Health, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

[3]Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

关键词: Prospective cohort;    Outcome;    Compensation;    Injury;    Rehabilitation;    Recovery;    Non-work injury;    Work-related injury;   

Others  :  1161627
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-995

 received in 2013-04-11, accepted in 2013-10-16,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Poorer recovery outcomes for workers injured in a work setting, as opposed to a non-work setting, are commonly attributed to differences in financial gain via entitlement to compensation by injury setting (ie. workers compensation schemes). To date, this attribution hasn’t been tested in a situation where both work and non-work-related injuries have an equivalent entitlement to compensation. This study tests the hypothesis that there will be no differences in recovery outcomes for workers by injury setting (work and non-work) within a single universal entitlement injury compensation scheme.

Methods

Workforce active participants from the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study (POIS) cohort were followed up at 3- and 12-months following injury. Participants who were injured in the period June 2007- May 2009 were recruited from New Zealand’s universal entitlement injury compensation scheme managed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). An analysis of ten vocational, disability, functional and psychological recovery outcomes was undertaken by injury setting. Modified Poisson regression analyses were undertaken to examine the relationship between injury setting and recovery outcomes.

Results

Of 2092 eligible participants, 741 (35%) had sustained an injury in a work setting. At 3 months, workers with work-related injuries had an elevated risk of work absence however, this difference disappeared after controlling for confounding variables (adjusted RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94-1.29). By 12 months, workers with work-related injuries had poorer recovery outcomes with a higher risk of absence from work (aRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10-1.70), mobility-related functional problems (aRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.60), disability (aRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04-1.68) and impaired functioning related to anxiety/depression (aRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.00-1.46).

Conclusion

Our study, comparing recovery outcomes for workers by injury setting within a single universal entitlement injury compensation scheme, found mixed support for the hypothesis tested. After adjustment for possible covariates recovery outcomes did not differ by injury setting at 3 months following injury, however, by 12 months vocational, disability and some functional outcomes, were poorer for workers with work-related injuries. Given our findings, and other potential mechanisms for poorer outcomes for workers with work-related injuries, further research beyond differences in entitlement to compensation should be undertaken to inform future interventions.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Lilley et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Clay FJ, Newstead SV, Watson WL, Ozanne-Smith J, Guy J, McClure RJ: Bio-phychosocial determinants of persistent pain 6 months after non-life-threatening acute orthopaedic trauma. J Pain 2010, 11(5):420-430.
• [2]Mason S, Wardrope J, Turpin G, Rowlands A: Outcomes after injury: a comparison of workplace and nonworkplace injury. J Trauma Inj Infect Critic Care 2002, 53:98-103.
• [3]Schneider JC, Bassi S, Ryan CM: Employment outcomes after burn injury: A comparison of those burned at work and those burned outside of work. J Burn Care Res 2011, 32:294-301.
• [4]Zelle BA, Panzica M, Vogt MT, Sittaro NA, Krettek C, Pape HC: Influence of workers’ compensation eligibility upon functional recovery 10 to 28 years after polytrauma. Am J Surg 2005, 190:30-36.
• [5]Gabbe B, Cameron P, Williamson O, et al.: The relationship betweeen compensible status and long-term patient outcomes following orthopaedic trauma. Med J Aust 2007, 187:14-17.
• [6]Harris I, Mulford J, Solomon M, et al.: Association between compensation status and outcome after surgery, a meta-analysis. JAMA 2005, 293:1644-1652.
• [7]Murgatroyd DF, Cameron ID, Harris IA: Understanding the effect of compensation on recovery from severe motor vehicle crash injuries: a qualitative study. Inj Prev 2011, 17(222):227.
• [8]Derrett S, Davie G, Ameratunga S, Wyeth E, Colhoun S, Wilson S, Samaranayaka A, Lilley R, Hokowhitu B, Hansen P, et al.: Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study: recruitment, and participant characteristics, health and disability status. Inj Prev 2011, 17:415-418.
• [9]Derrett S, Langley J, Hokowhitu B, Ameratunga S, Hansen P, Davie G, Wyeth E, Lilley R: Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study. Inj Prev 2009, 15:e3.
• [10]Statistics New Zealand: 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand; 2007.
• [11]Statistics New Zealand: New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand; 2001.
• [12]European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: Third European survey on working conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Offical Publications of the European Communities; 2000:72.
• [13]Ministry of Health: New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2006.
• [14]Derrett S, Samaranayaka A, Wilson S, Langley J, Ameratunga S, Cameron I, Lilley R, Wyeth E, Davie G: Prevalence and predictors of disability after injury among hospitalised and non-hospitalised groups: results from the sub-acute phase. PLoS ONE 2012, 7(9):e44909.
• [15]Fingerhut LA, Aharonson-Daniel L, McKenzie EJ, Ziv A, Boyko V, Abargel A, Avitzour M, Heruti R: The Barell matrix. Inj Prev 2002, 15(5):259.
• [16]Fingerhut LA, Warner M: The ICD-10 injury mortality diagnosis matrix. Inj Prev 2006, 12:24-29.
• [17]Gennarelli T, Wodzin E: The abbreviated injury scale 2005. Update 2008. Des Plaines: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine; 2008.
• [18]Osler T, Baker SP, Long W: A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma 1997, 43:922-926.
• [19]Ustun T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J: Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Malta: WHO; 2010. editors
• [20]Brooks R: EuroQual: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37(1):53-72.
• [21]Langley J, Derrett S, Davie G, Ameratunga S, Wyeth E: A cohort study of short-term functional outcomes following injury: the role of pre-injury sociodemographic and health characteristics, injury and injury-related healthcare. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011, 9:68. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Andrews G, Kemp A, Sunderland M, Von Korff M, Ustun T: Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). PLoS ONE 2009, 4(12):e8343.
• [23]Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand ST, et al.: Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psyc Med 2002, 32(6):959-976.
• [24]Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W: Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychos Med 1979, 41(3):209-218.
• [25]Zou G: A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epi 2004, 159:702-706.
• [26]StataCorp: Stata: Release 11 Statistical Software. College Station: StataCorp; 2009.
• [27]Hou W-H, Tsauo J-Y, Lin C-H, Lian H-W, Du C-L: Worker's compensation and return-to-work following orthopaedic injury to extremities. J Rehab Med 2008, 40:440-445.
• [28]MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chambers L: The “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don't return to work as expected. J Occ Rehab 2010, 20:349-366.
• [29]Franche R-L, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Franck J: Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of quantitative literature. J Occ Rehab 2005, 15(4):607-631.
• [30]Grunert BK, Devine CA, Matloub HS, Sanger JR, Yousif NJ, Anderson RC, Roell SM: Psychological adjustment following work-related hand injury: 18-month follow-up. Ann Plas Surg 1992, 29:537-542.
• [31]Grant G, Studdert D: Poisoned Chalice? A critical analysis of the evidence linking personal injury compensation processes with adverse health outcomes. Melb Uni Law Rev 2009, 33(3):865-885.
• [32]Coopers PW: Accident Compensation Corporation - New Zealand Scheme Review. PriceWaterhouse Coopers: Sydney, Australia; 2008.
• [33]Accident Compensation Corporation: Annual Report 2011. Accident Compensation Corporation. Wellington, New Zealand: Accident Compensation Corporation; 2012.
• [34]Wilson R, Derrett S, Hansen P, Langley J: Reterospective evaluation versus population norms for the measurement of baseline health status. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012, 10:68. BioMed Central Full Text