Show simple item record

Methodologic issues in the use of workers' compensation databases for the study of work injuries with days away from work. I. Sensitivity of case ascertainment

dc.contributor.authorOleinick, Arthuren_US
dc.contributor.authorZaidman, Brianen_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-19T13:52:33Z
dc.date.available2006-04-19T13:52:33Z
dc.date.issued2004-03en_US
dc.identifier.citationOleinick, Arthur; Zaidman, Brian (2004)."Methodologic issues in the use of workers' compensation databases for the study of work injuries with days away from work. I. Sensitivity of case ascertainment." American Journal of Industrial Medicine 45(3): 260-274. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/34825>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0271-3586en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0274en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/34825
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14991853&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground Case ascertainment costs vary substantially between primary and secondary data sources. This review summarizes information on the sensitivity of state administrative databases in workers' compensation systems for the ascertainment of days-away-from-work (DAFW) work injuries for use in modeling studies. Methods Review of the literature supplemented by data from governmental or organizational reports or produced for this report. Results Employers currently appear to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for 98.9% of wage and salary workers. Wage and salary jobs account for approximately 90% of jobs in the United States. In industries such as manufacturing, the fraction of covered jobs is probably closer to 98%. In Minnesota, the number of DAFW cases ascertained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual survey of occupational injuries and illnesses is approximately 92–97% concordant with the number of wage compensation claims for injuries producing DAFW over the period 1992–2000, once adjustments are made to permit direct comparisons of the numbers. The workers' compensation databases provide information for more than 95% of the total DAFW resulting from work injuries. Covariate estimates are unaffected by this less than 5% loss because effects appear dependent on time from injury. Conclusions Statewide workers' compensation administrative databases can have substantial utility for epidemiologic study of work injuries with DAFW because of their size, using high sensitivity for case ascertainment as the evaluative criterion. Am. J. Ind. Med. 45:260–274, 2004. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.en_US
dc.format.extent171999 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLife and Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherOccupational Health and Environmental Toxicologyen_US
dc.titleMethodologic issues in the use of workers' compensation databases for the study of work injuries with days away from work. I. Sensitivity of case ascertainmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Occupational Health Program, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherResearch and Statistics, Department of Labor and Industry, State of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesotaen_US
dc.identifier.pmid14991853en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/34825/1/10333_ftp.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10333en_US
dc.identifier.sourceAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicineen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.