BMJ open · 2018
Development of prediction models of stress and long-term disability among claimants to injury compensation systems: a cohort study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spittal Matthew J, Grant Genevieve, O'Donnell Meaghan, McFarlane Alexander C, Studdert David M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop prognostic risk scores for compensation-related stress and long-term disability using markers collected within 3 months of a serious injury.
DESIGN: Cohort study. Predictors were collected at baseline and at 3 months postinjury. Outcome data were collected at 72 months postinjury.
SETTING: Hospitalised patients with serious injuries recruited from four major trauma hospitals in Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: 332 participants who made claims for compensation for their injuries to a transport accident scheme or a workers' compensation scheme.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule and 6 items from the Claims Experience Survey.
RESULTS: Our model for long-term disability had four predictors (unemployed at the time of injury, history of a psychiatric disorder at time of injury, post-traumatic stress disorder symptom severity at 3 months and disability at 3 months). This model had good discrimination (R2=0.37) and calibration. The disability risk score had a score range of 0-180, and at a threshold of 80 had sensitivity of 56% and specificity of 86%. Our model for compensation-related stress had five predictors (intensive care unit admission, discharged to home, number of traumatic events prior to injury, depression at 3 months and not working at 3 months). This model also had good discrimination (area under the curve=0.83) and calibration. The compensation-related stress risk score had score range of 0-220 and at a threshold of 100 had sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 75%. By combining these two scoring systems, we were able to identify the subgroup of claimants at highest risk of experiencing both outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability to identify at an early stage claimants at high risk of compensation-related stress and poor recovery is potentially valuable for claimants and the compensation agencies that serve them. The scoring systems we developed could be incorporated into the claims-handling processes to guide prevention-oriented interventions.
DESIGN: Cohort study. Predictors were collected at baseline and at 3 months postinjury. Outcome data were collected at 72 months postinjury.
SETTING: Hospitalised patients with serious injuries recruited from four major trauma hospitals in Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: 332 participants who made claims for compensation for their injuries to a transport accident scheme or a workers' compensation scheme.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule and 6 items from the Claims Experience Survey.
RESULTS: Our model for long-term disability had four predictors (unemployed at the time of injury, history of a psychiatric disorder at time of injury, post-traumatic stress disorder symptom severity at 3 months and disability at 3 months). This model had good discrimination (R2=0.37) and calibration. The disability risk score had a score range of 0-180, and at a threshold of 80 had sensitivity of 56% and specificity of 86%. Our model for compensation-related stress had five predictors (intensive care unit admission, discharged to home, number of traumatic events prior to injury, depression at 3 months and not working at 3 months). This model also had good discrimination (area under the curve=0.83) and calibration. The compensation-related stress risk score had score range of 0-220 and at a threshold of 100 had sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 75%. By combining these two scoring systems, we were able to identify the subgroup of claimants at highest risk of experiencing both outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability to identify at an early stage claimants at high risk of compensation-related stress and poor recovery is potentially valuable for claimants and the compensation agencies that serve them. The scoring systems we developed could be incorporated into the claims-handling processes to guide prevention-oriented interventions.