0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Relationship Between Stressfulness of Claiming for Injury Compensation and Long-term Recovery:  A Prospective Cohort Study FREE

Genevieve M. Grant, LLB, PhD1,2; Meaghan L. O’Donnell, PhD3,4; Matthew J. Spittal, PhD2; Mark Creamer, PhD3,4; David M. Studdert, LLB, ScD, MPH5,6
[+] Author Affiliations
1Faculty of Law, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
2Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
5Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
6Stanford Law School, Stanford, California
JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(4):446-453. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.4023.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Each year, millions of persons worldwide seek compensation for transport accident and workplace injuries. Previous research suggests that these claimants have worse long-term health outcomes than persons whose injuries fall outside compensation schemes. However, existing studies have substantial methodological weaknesses and have not identified which aspects of the claiming experience may drive these effects.

Objective  To determine aspects of claims processes that claimants to transport accident and workers’ compensation schemes find stressful and whether such stressful experiences are associated with poorer long-term recovery.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Prospective cohort study of a random sample of 1010 patients hospitalized in 3 Australian states for injuries from 2004 through 2006. At 6-year follow-up, we interviewed 332 participants who had claimed compensation from transport accident and workers’ compensation schemes (“claimants”) to determine which aspects of the claiming experience they found stressful. We used multivariable regression analysis to test for associations between compensation-related stress and health status at 6 years, adjusting for baseline determinants of long-term health status and predisposition to stressful experiences (via propensity scores).

Main Outcomes and Measures  Disability, quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

Results  Among claimants, 33.9% reported high levels of stress associated with understanding what they needed to do for their claim; 30.4%, with claim delays; 26.9%, with the number of medical assessments; and 26.1%, with the amount of compensation they received. Six years after their injury, claimants who reported high levels of stress had significantly higher levels of disability (+6.94 points, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule sum score), anxiety and depression (+1.89 points and +2.61 points, respectively, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and lower quality of life (−0.73 points, World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument, overall item), compared with other claimants. Adjusting for claimants’ vulnerability to stress attenuated the strength of these associations, but most remained strong and statistically significant.

Conclusions and Relevance  Many claimants experience high levels of stress from engaging with injury compensation schemes, and this experience is positively correlated with poor long-term recovery. Intervening early to boost resilience among those at risk of stressful claims experiences and redesigning compensation processes to reduce their stressfulness may improve recovery and save money.

Figures in this Article

Injury is an important contributor to the burden of disease, accounting for 10% of deaths and 11% of disability-adjusted life years globally in 2010.1,2 A substantial proportion of nonfatal injuries occur on the road or in the workplace.2,3 In developed and middle-income countries, persons who sustain injuries in these settings are often eligible to claim monetary benefits from injury compensation schemes. Although a central goal of such schemes is to help return injured persons to work and health, there are growing concerns that they may have the opposite effect.4,5

By comparing the postinjury health status of patients who claim compensation with that of patients who do not claim, more than 100 studies have concluded that recovery trajectories are worse among claimants.6 Other studies have linked receipt of certain benefits from compensation schemes to slower recoveries.7,8 Commentators have posited a causal relationship between “exposure” to compensation systems and ill health.9 One explanation for this effect focuses on claimants’ choices and behaviors.10 Another points to stressful aspects of the claims process itself, including adversarialism and clinical scrutiny, as independent determinants of poor health outcomes.11

The nature, extent, and cause of compensation-related health effects remain unclear, largely as a result of fundamental limitations in the extant research.9,1214 This study was designed to avoid these limitations. We observed a cohort of injured patients for 6 years and then interviewed those who had pursued claims in transport accident and workers’ compensation schemes about their experience. Our analysis investigated compensation-related health effects within this sample of claimants. The study aims were to determine which aspects of the process claimants found stressful and whether stressful experiences were associated with poorer long-term recovery.

This analysis was nested within the Australian Injury Vulnerability Study (IVS), a longitudinal, hospital inception cohort study of the mental and physical health outcomes of injured patients in Australia. The IVS methodology has been described previously.1517

IVS Participants

The IVS participants consisted of injured patients admitted to 1 of 4 major trauma hospitals in 3 Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia) between April 2004 and February 2006. A random sample of 1590 patients was selected from among English-speaking patients aged 16 to 70 years with injuries severe enough to warrant hospitalization lasting at least 24 hours. Patients with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury were excluded, as were those who were assessed by medical staff as currently psychotic or actively suicidal. The study was approved by human research ethics committees at the University of Melbourne and each of the hospitals.

A total of 1010 patients provided written consent to participate and completed an intake assessment questionnaire immediately prior to discharge. Patients who declined to participate at baseline (n = 580) did not differ significantly from participants in age, sex, length of hospitalization, or injury severity.

The cohort was followed up for additional measures at 3, 12, 24, and 72 months. The 6-year follow-up was undertaken between January 2011 and May 2012; 616 (61%) of the original IVS cohort participated. Participants who completed the 6-year assessment did not differ significantly from baseline participants who dropped out (n = 394) in terms of sex, the presence of mild traumatic brain injury,18 length of hospitalization, or injury severity; however, 6-year completers were slightly older than noncompleters (mean age, 39.5 vs 36.1 years; P < .001).

Health Status Measures

Injury Vulnerability Study investigators extracted participants’ demographic and injury-related information from hospital records. Preinjury psychiatric history was assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, version 5.5,19 and converted to a dichotomous variable indicating any major depressive episode, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), social phobia, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or substance use disorder. Severity of PTSD symptoms was assessed during hospitalization and at each follow-up using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale.20 Participants’ disability (preinjury, follow-ups) was measured using the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0.21 We used the simple sum scoring method22 to create a scale ranging from 0 (no disability) to 48 (complete disability).

Severity of symptoms of anxiety and depression (during hospitalization, follow-ups) was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which scores these disorders on scales ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating higher severity.23,24 Quality of life (preinjury, follow-ups) was measured using the overall item from the World Health Organization Quality of Life (Brief Version) instrument (WHOQOL), which asks, “How would you rate your quality of life in the last two weeks?”25 Responses range from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good).

Compensation Schemes and Claims Experience

Our analysis focused on IVS participants who pursued a compensation claim with a transport accident or workers’ compensation scheme in Victoria, New South Wales, or South Australia. A description of the general structure of these schemes is provided in the eAppendix (in Supplement).

To collect information about the experiences of claimants, we developed the Claim Experience Survey. This survey was designed to elicit information about elements of the claiming experience that claimants found stressful. We focused on the construct of “stress” because it is readily understandable in a general survey, is frequently discussed as a negative reaction to the claims experience in the literature on compensation-related health effects,9,10 and has a plausible biological relationship with health.26 Claimants were asked whether they found each of the 9 elements of the claims experience stressful, and those who responded affirmatively were asked to rate the element, or “stressor,” on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“a little stressful”) to 5 (“extremely stressful”). For analytical purposes, we dichotomized this variable into “no or low stress” (negative response to the stressor question or positive response followed by scores 1-2) and “high stress” (positive response followed by scores 3-5).

We drew the stressors from literature in the fields of organizational and procedural justice,2730 and qualitative investigations of claimants’ experiences of claiming compensation.3133 Some questions were taken directly from instruments developed and validated in previous studies.28,30 We piloted the survey for face validity, comprehension, and feasibility and then administered it as part of the 6-year IVS follow-up interview.

Claimants’ Vulnerability to Stress

A variety of factors other than the stressfulness of engaging with the claims process determine recovery from injury, including claimants’ preinjury characteristics (eg, age, psychiatric history), characteristics of the injury itself (eg, severity), and claimants’ psychological response to the injury. Our analyses of the relationship between compensation-related stress and recovery adjusted for a range of such baseline factors (Figure 1). However, these same factors may also affect claimants’ psychological response to the claims process. To adjust our analyses for such “vulnerability” factors, we used a propensity score method.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Determinants of Long-term Health Outcomes Following Injury

The boldface arrow indicates the relationship of interest. Nonbold solid arrows indicate baseline predictors of long-term health outcomes. Dashed arrows indicate predictors of stressful claims experiences.

Graphic Jump Location

Propensity scores were obtained by regressing claimants’ responses to the stressor questions on the following baseline variables: demographic characteristics (age, income, sex, marital status, education); preinjury health status (psychiatric history, disability); injury (Injury Severity Score [ISS],34 length of hospitalization, presence of a mild traumatic brain injury, discharge to rehabilitation or home); psychological response to the injury (anxiety, depression, PTSD severity in hospital and at 3 months); and hospital and compensation scheme. These equations produced scores ranging from 0 to 1 for each claimant and each stressor–health outcome combination.

Statistical Analyses

We used multivariable linear regression to test for associations between compensation-related stress and long-term health status. The predictors of interest were claimants’ responses to the stressor questions (high stress vs no or low stress). The outcomes of interest were disability, overall quality of life, anxiety, and depression—all measured at 6 years after injury.

Our primary analyses consisted of models for each combination of the stressors and outcomes. These models adjusted for claimant age and income, ISS, duration of hospitalization, sex, preinjury psychiatric history, compensation scheme, and the baseline values of the relevant health status measure. The baseline measures for disability and quality of life pertained to claimants’ health in the month prior to their injury; the baseline measures for anxiety and depression pertained to claimants’ health in the acute postinjury period. Our secondary analyses involved rerunning each model with the propensity score as an additional covariate.

Finally, we conducted marginal effects analyses to examine the “spread” of claimants’ health status at 6 years, across varying levels of compensation-related stress. We summed each claimant’s ratings on the stressor questions to construct a simple aggregate measure of claim-related stress. We used this aggregate measure as the predictor of interest in models with the same specifications as our secondary analyses (ie, including the propensity score). These models were used to predict the health status of claimants at the 10th (lower), 50th (median), and 90th (higher) percentiles of stress. All analyses were conducted using Stata SE software, version 11.

Two-thirds (409 of 616) of IVS participants interviewed 6 years after their injury had made claims for compensation. The claims were pursued with transport accident schemes (257 claimants), workers’ compensation schemes (82), personal accident or income protection insurers (41), crime victim compensation funds (21), public liability insurers (6), and unknown entities (2). All results reported hereafter pertain to the 332 claimants (54% of 6-year participants) who pursued transport accident and workers’ compensation claims and responded to the Claim Experience Survey. Assuming that an equivalent proportion of the 1010 IVS participants at baseline went on to become claimants to the schemes, approximately 61% (332 of 544) of the subgroup of interest participated at 6 years.

Sample Characteristics

Claimants had a mean (SD) age at hospitalization of 39 (13) years, and 71% were men (Table 1). Their median (interquartile range [IQR]) ISS was 10 (8-16), which represents moderate severity. Their median (IQR) length of hospitalization was 8.5 (5-15) days. Forty-five percent of claimants sustained mild traumatic brain injury. Nearly all claimants (94%) were in paid employment prior to their injury.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Claimants’ Preinjury, Injury, and Claim Characteristics

Approximately three-quarters of claimants had filed claims in the transport accident scheme (61%) or workers’ compensation scheme (11%) in Victoria. Eighty-seven percent of claimants reported that their claim was complete at 6 years after injury (excluding any residual claims for health and medical costs, an ongoing benefit in some schemes).

Stressfulness of Claims Experience

The aspects of the claims experience most often reported as highly stressful by claimants were understanding what they needed to do for their claim (33.9%) and the amount of time that the scheme took to deal with their claim (30.4%) (Table 2). Approximately one-quarter of claimants reported high levels of stress associated with the number of medical assessments (26.9%) and with the amount of compensation that they eventually received (26.1%). The aspects of the claims experience least often reported as highly stressful by claimants were negative attitudes from family, friends, and colleagues (6.9%) and negative attitudes from health care professionals (7.9%).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Claim Experience Survey: Stressor Questions and Results

Responses to the fairness question were highly collinear with responses to other stressor questions (specifically, those regarding being listened to, and being treated with respect and dignity). We therefore excluded this question from further analyses. We also excluded the 2 questions regarding negative attitudes because so few respondents identified them as a source of high levels of stress.

The 6 stress items used in our analyses exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach α, 0.87). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the items grouped well into a single factor (comparative fit index, 0.98; Tucker-Lewis index, 0.96; root mean squared error of approximation, 0.08; standardized root mean squared residual, 0.03; coefficient of determination, 0.88).

Multivariable Analyses

Figure 2 shows results from analyses estimating the relationship between the stressfulness of claimants’ compensation experience and their 6-year health status. To guide interpretation of this figure, consider the results associated with the most commonly identified stressor, “understanding what you needed to do for your claim.” Six years after sustaining their injuries, claimants who reported high levels of stress from this source averaged significantly higher levels of disability (WHODAS β, 6.06 [95% CI, 4.27 to 7.87]), lower quality of life (WHOQOL, overall item β, −0.53 [95% CI, −0.76 to −0.29]), and higher levels of anxiety (HADS β, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.00 to 3.39]) and depression (HADS β, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.24 to 3.28]), compared with claimants who reported not experiencing high levels of stress from this factor (triangles, Figure 2).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Health Status Differences Between Stressed and Nonstressed Claimants at 6 Years After Injury

Y-axes describe stressors in the compensation process. X-axes are based on the relevant scale for each outcome measure. The point estimates (symbols) and 95% confidence intervals (error bars) represent differences between highly stressed claimants and all other claimants. Where confidence intervals cross zero on the x-axis (dotted vertical line), there is no statistically significant difference between high-stress claimants and other claimants. All estimates come directly from coefficients in multivariable regression models (1 per point estimate).

Graphic Jump Location

Inclusion of the propensity score attenuated all observed effects (circles, Figure 2). For example, claimants highly stressed by understanding what they needed to do for their claim still averaged significantly higher levels of disability (WHODAS β, 3.50 [95% CI, 1.49 to 5.51]), lower quality of life (WHOQOL, overall item β, −0.32 [95% CI, −0.61 to −0.04]), and higher levels of anxiety (HADS β, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.19 to 2.92]) and depression (HADS β, 1.66 [95% CI, 0.48 to 2.84]), but these effects were smaller than in the corresponding models without the propensity score.

In sum, every one of the 24 models that did not include the propensity score as a covariate showed a significant negative association between the stressfulness of the claim experience and health status 6 years after injury. After inclusion of the propensity score, 17 of the 24 models showed a significant negative association.

Marginal Effects Analysis

The aggregated stress measures, which were calculated by summing claimants’ scores across the 6 stressor questions, ranged widely (median [IQR], 4 [0-12]). There were large differences in claimants’ 6-year health status across this range (Figure 3). For example, the estimated WHODAS score of the highest-stress claimants (90th percentile) was 11.63, 6.94 points higher than that of claimants reporting no or low stress. Compared with population norms, the disability scores associated with the 90th percentile group fall into the highest decile of WHODAS scores in the general Australian population.22

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.
Predicted Health Status for Individuals With Low, Median, and High Levels of Claim-Related Stress

The combined stress measure is the sum of the 6 stressors, each scored from 0 to 5. Low, median, and high are defined as the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of the combined stress measure. A, Disability, measured on a scale of 0 to 48; B, overall quality of life, measured on a scale of 1 to 5; C, anxiety, measured on a scale of 0 to 21; D, depression, measured on a scale of 0 to 21.

Graphic Jump Location

This cohort study of claimants to transport accident and workers’ compensation schemes in 3 Australian states found that stress related to the experience of making a claim was prevalent. Claimants with the most stressful experiences had relatively poor long-term recovery. Adjusting for clinical and demographic factors that may have predisposed claimants to experiencing the claims process as stressful reduced the strength of the association but did not eliminate it.

Many qualitative studies of claimants’ experiences with compensation systems have identified the stressful nature of the claims process as a contributor to enduring ill health.10,11,3133 However, interview-based research of this kind generally involves small samples, lacks a comparison group, and cannot estimate population-level effects.10 Quantitative research on organizational justice has demonstrated relationships between workers’ experiences of injustice in occupational settings and ill health.27,3537

Studies that have examined the health effects of compensation systems quantitatively are beset with methodological problems.9,1214,38 Three problems stand out. First, and most importantly, most of these studies estimate compensation-related health effects by comparing the health status of patients whose injuries were the subject of compensation claims with the health status of patients whose injuries were not. In some of these studies, the nonclaimants are persons whose injuries suggest that they were eligible to file claims but they did not; in other studies, the comparison group consists of persons with injuries or diseases that fall outside the ambit of compensation schemes. There is wide scope for selection biases to contaminate these comparisons.12 Patients who choose not to make a claim may be more resilient, and their injuries may be less severe and have lesser life impacts.38 Injuries that fall outside compensation schemes may not engender the kind of shock, trauma, and long-term sequelae that injuries covered by compensation schemes do. This is true even for injuries with similar clinical features, for example, a back injury from playing recreational tennis compared with one sustained in an automobile crash or a fall at work.

Second, previous studies have typically measured outcomes within 1 year of injury, and few have measured beyond 2 years.39 This is too soon. Compensation claims often take years to resolve, and longer cases are more likely to involve disputes and difficulties. Thus, in studies with short follow-up periods, closed claims will be biased toward those that are relatively straightforward, and among open claims the full health effects of the claimant’s compensation experience may not yet have materialized.

Finally, all but a few of the previous studies have used cross-sectional data on health outcomes. Without baseline measures of claimants’ health status, recovery cannot be examined accurately. Moreover, it is not possible to adjust for the influence that such baseline factors may have on both the claimants’ compensation experience and their long-term health status.

If health effects from compensation processes exist, they should be stronger among claimants who have more stressful experiences in pursuing compensation. Our analytical approach was designed to test for such variation. In this way, we avoided the methodological problems associated with the standard claimant vs nonclaimant comparisons. We also extended the literature in this area by tracking claimants over a 6-year period and linking adverse health effects to particular aspects of the claiming experience.

Nonetheless, our study has its own limitations. First, the sample is limited to claimants hospitalized for at least 24 hours after injury; they are likely to be more seriously injured than other claimants. The extent to which the study findings are generalizable to nonhospitalized claimants is unknown. Second, our findings may have been affected by sample attrition or nonresponses in the IVS; however, because the analyses focused on within-group differences, they should be less vulnerable to biases from these sources.

Third, study participants may have inaccurately recalled their preinjury health.40 This possibility was minimized by the conduct of the acute assessments soon after injury occurrence (median [IQR], 5 [3-8] days). Moreover, for such recall issues to bias our estimates of the relationship of interest, they would need to have varied systematically with responses to the stressor questions, which is unlikely. Fourth, although our analyses controlled for many of the recognized and important predictors of long-term health outcomes after injury, we did not include some (eg, specific comorbidities,4144 body region injured,4144 regular smoking,44 and intensive care unit days).43 It is possible that 1 or more omitted variables may have confounded our estimates. Finally, our analyses show associations, not cause-and-effect relationships.

Some degree of claimant stress in the compensation experience may be unavoidable. To determine eligibility and levels of compensation, schemes must collect, investigate, and test evidence. This is their core business. However, our findings highlight parts of the system that appear especially prone to inducing the types of stresses among claimants that may hinder recovery.

Two of the largest negative health effects that we observed were associated with problems that claimants had in understanding what the claims process required of them and the stress that claimants linked to the time taken to deal with their claims. Population-level studies of the experience of legal problems demonstrate that community members often have limited knowledge about their legal rights and the steps needed to make a claim.4548 Enhancing claimants’ access to information about the claims process and benefits to which they may be entitled could reduce stress among claimants. Our finding of an association between stress from process duration and health outcomes provides added impetus for schemes to strive to minimize delays in their handling of claims.

An innovative feature of our study was use of propensity scores to adjust for claimants’ vulnerability to the stresses of making a claim. For every stressor–health outcome combination examined, this adjustment reduced the magnitude of the association; in one-third of the combinations, the association was significant before adjusting for this factor but not after. This finding suggests that analyses of compensation health effects that ignore claimants’ predisposition to stress, as all previous studies that we are aware of have done, are likely to exaggerate the size of these effects. Concomitantly, interventions to reduce compensation effects that focus exclusively on determinants connected to compensation processes and not on determinants that are associated with the claimants themselves will tackle only 1 side of the problem. Additional research is needed to investigate the role of vulnerability to stressful claims experiences in slowing claimants’ recovery.

Our findings point to 2 potential strategies for improving the recovery of claimants in compensation schemes for personal injury. One approach would focus on redesigning schemes to make them less stressful for claimants. A logical starting point is processes that are both strongly associated with claimant stress and modifiable; in our study, claimants’ understanding of what is required and claim duration appear to meet both criteria. Another approach would seek to screen and intervene early with claimants who exhibit characteristics, such as mental health problems, that indicate vulnerability to stressors in the claims process. Stepped-care, early-intervention models, for instance, have shown promise in improving mental health outcomes after injury.49 A mix of interventions along these lines may be the best means of ensuring that injury compensation schemes deliver on their founding objective of enhancing recovery rather than impeding it.

Submitted for Publication: May 1, 2013; final revision received August 19, 2013; accepted September 20, 2013.

Corresponding Author: David M. Studdert, LLB, ScD, MPH, Center for Health Policy/PCOR, Stanford University, 117 Encina Commons, Stanford, CA 94305 (studdert@stanford.edu).

Published Online: February 12, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.4023.

Author Contributions: Drs Grant and Spittal had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition of data: Grant, O’Donnell, Creamer.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Grant, O’Donnell, Spittal, Studdert.

Drafting of the manuscript: Grant, O’Donnell, Spittal, Studdert.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Grant, Spittal, Studdert.

Obtained funding: All authors.

Administrative, technical, and material support: O’Donnell, Creamer, Studdert.

Study supervision: O’Donnell, Creamer, Studdert.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and a National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant (568970). Dr Studdert was supported by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL1101000102).

Role of the Sponsors: The sponsors reviewed the manuscript but had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Lozano  R, Naghavi  M, Foreman  K,  et al.  Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 [published correction appears in Lancet. 2013;381(9867):628]. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2095-2128.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Murray  CJL, Vos  T, Lozano  R,  et al.  Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 [published correction appears in Lancet. 2013;381(9867):628]. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2197-2223.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Concha-Barrientos  M, Nelson  DI, Fingerhut  M, Driscoll  T, Leigh  J.  The global burden due to occupational injury. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):470-481.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lippel  K.  Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: an international perspective. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(6):519-536.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cameron  P, Gabbe  B.  The effect of compensation claims on outcomes after injury. Injury. 2009;40(9):905-906.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harris  I, Mulford  J, Solomon  M, van Gelder  JM, Young  J.  Association between compensation status and outcome after surgery: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2005;293(13):1644-1652.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cameron  ID, Rebbeck  T, Sindhusake  D,  et al.  Legislative change is associated with improved health status in people with whiplash. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(3):250-254.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cassidy  JD, Carroll  LJ, Côté  P, Lemstra  M, Berglund  A, Nygren  Å.  Effect of eliminating compensation for pain and suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(16):1179-1186.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Grant  G, Studdert  DM.  Poisoned chalice? a critical analysis of the evidence linking personal injury compensation processes with adverse health outcomes. Melb Univ Law Rev. 2009;33(3):865-885.
Robinson  JP, Loeser  JD. Effects of workers’ compensation systems on recovery from disabling injuries. In: Hasenbring  MA, Rusu  AC, Turk  DC, eds. From Acute to Chronic Back Pain: Risk Factors, Mechanisms, and Clinical Implications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012:355-376.
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(4):222-227.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spearing  NM, Connelly  LB.  Whiplash and the compensation hypothesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25)(suppl):S303-S308.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carroll  LJ, Connelly  LB, Spearing  NM, Côté  P, Buitenhuis  J, Kenardy  J.  Complexities in understanding the role of compensation-related factors on recovery from whiplash-associated disorders: discussion paper 2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25)(suppl):S316-S321.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Elbers  NA, Hulst  L, Cuijpers  P, Akkermans  AJ, Bruinvels  DJ.  Do compensation processes impair mental health? a meta-analysis. Injury. 2013;44(5):674-683.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
O’Donnell  ML, Creamer  M, Elliott  P, Bryant  R, McFarlane  A, Silove  D.  Prior trauma and psychiatric history as risk factors for intentional and unintentional injury in Australia. J Trauma. 2009;66(2):470-476.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
O’Donnell  ML, Creamer  M, Pattison  P, Atkin  C.  Psychiatric morbidity following injury. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(3):507-514.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bryant  RA, O’Donnell  ML, Creamer  M, McFarlane  AC, Clark  CR, Silove  D.  The psychiatric sequelae of traumatic injury. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(3):312-320.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kay  T, Harrington  DE, Adams  R, ; American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.  Definition of mild traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1993;8(3):86-87.
Link to Article
Sheehan  DV, Lecrubier  Y, Sheehan  KH,  et al.  The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(suppl 20):22-57.
PubMed
Blake  DD, Weathers  FW, Nagy  LM,  et al.  The development of a clinician-administered PTSD scale. J Trauma Stress. 1995;8(1):75-90.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ustun  TB, Kostanjsek  N, Chatterji  S, Rehm  J, eds. Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
Andrews  G, Kemp  A, Sunderland  M, Von Korff  M, Ustun  TB.  Normative data for the 12 item WHO disability assessment schedule 2.0. PLoS One. 2009;4(12):e8343.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zigmond  AS, Snaith  RP.  The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361-370.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bjelland  I, Dahl  AA, Haug  TT, Neckelmann  D.  The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52(2):69-77.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
World Health Organization. The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) – BREF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
Brunner  E, Marmot  M. Social organization, stress, and health. In: Marmot  M, Wilkinson  R, eds. Social Determinants of Health.2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2006:6-30.
Greenberg  J.  Organizational injustice as an occupational health risk. Acad Manag Ann.2010;4(1):205-243.
Link to Article
Colquitt  JA.  On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386-400.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lind  EA, Tyler  TR. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1988.
Franche  RL, Severin  CN, Lee  H,  et al.  Perceived justice of compensation process for return-to-work: development and validation of a scale. Psychol Inj Law.2009;2:225-237.
Link to Article
Strunin  L, Boden  LI.  The workers’ compensation system: worker friend or foe? Am J Ind Med. 2004;45(4):338-345.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lippel  K.  Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: a Québec study. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007;30(4-5):427-443.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
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 Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):349-366.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Baker  SP, O’Neill  B, Haddon  W  Jr, Long  WB.  The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974;14(3):187-196.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ndjaboué  R, Brisson  C, Vézina  M.  Organisational justice and mental health: a systematic review of prospective studies. Occup Environ Med. 2012;69(10):694-700.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kivimäki  M, Elovainio  M, Vahtera  J, Ferrie  JE.  Organisational justice and health of employees: prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(1):27-34.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
De Vogli  R, Ferrie  JE, Chandola  T, Kivimäki  M, Marmot  MG.  Unfairness and health: evidence from the Whitehall II Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(6):513-518.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spearing  NM, Connelly  LB, Nghiem  HS, Pobereskin  L.  Research on injury compensation and health outcomes: ignoring the problem of reverse causality led to a biased conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1219-1226.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Van Beeck  EF, Larsen  CF, Lyons  RA, Meerding  WJ, Mulder  S, Essink-Bot  ML.  Guidelines for the conduction of follow-up studies measuring injury-related disability. J Trauma. 2007;62(2):534-550.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilson  R, Derrett  S, Hansen  P, Langley  J.  Retrospective evaluation versus population norms for the measurement of baseline health status. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:68.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kendrick  D, Vinogradova  Y, Coupland  C,  et al; UK Burden of Injuries Study Group.  Recovery from injury: the UK burden of injury multicentre longitudinal study. Inj Prev. 2013;19(6):370-381.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Polinder  S, van Beeck  EF, Essink-Bot  ML,  et al.  Functional outcome at 2.5, 5, 9, and 24 months after injury in the Netherlands. J Trauma. 2007;62(1):133-141.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Holbrook  TL, Anderson  JP, Sieber  WJ, Browner  D, Hoyt  DB.  Outcome after major trauma: 12-month and 18-month follow-up results from the Trauma Recovery Project. J Trauma. 1999;46(5):765-773.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Langley  J, Davie  G, Wilson  S,  et al.  Difficulties in functioning 1 year after injury: the role of preinjury sociodemographic and health characteristics, health care and injury-related factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(7):1277-1286.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Coumarelos  C, Macourt  D, People  J,  et al. Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales; 2012.
Currie  A. The Legal Problems of Everyday Life: The Nature, Extent and Consequences of Justiciable Problems Experienced by Canadians. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Department of Justice; 2007.
Genn  H. Paths to Justice: What People Do and Think About Going to Law. Oxford, England: Hart; 1999.
Pleasence  P, Balmer  N, Buck  A. Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social Justice.2nd ed. Norwich, England: The Stationery Office; 2006.
O’Donnell  ML, Lau  W, Tipping  S,  et al.  Stepped early psychological intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders, and depression following serious injury. J Trauma Stress. 2012;25(2):125-133.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Determinants of Long-term Health Outcomes Following Injury

The boldface arrow indicates the relationship of interest. Nonbold solid arrows indicate baseline predictors of long-term health outcomes. Dashed arrows indicate predictors of stressful claims experiences.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Health Status Differences Between Stressed and Nonstressed Claimants at 6 Years After Injury

Y-axes describe stressors in the compensation process. X-axes are based on the relevant scale for each outcome measure. The point estimates (symbols) and 95% confidence intervals (error bars) represent differences between highly stressed claimants and all other claimants. Where confidence intervals cross zero on the x-axis (dotted vertical line), there is no statistically significant difference between high-stress claimants and other claimants. All estimates come directly from coefficients in multivariable regression models (1 per point estimate).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.
Predicted Health Status for Individuals With Low, Median, and High Levels of Claim-Related Stress

The combined stress measure is the sum of the 6 stressors, each scored from 0 to 5. Low, median, and high are defined as the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of the combined stress measure. A, Disability, measured on a scale of 0 to 48; B, overall quality of life, measured on a scale of 1 to 5; C, anxiety, measured on a scale of 0 to 21; D, depression, measured on a scale of 0 to 21.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Claimants’ Preinjury, Injury, and Claim Characteristics
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Claim Experience Survey: Stressor Questions and Results

References

Lozano  R, Naghavi  M, Foreman  K,  et al.  Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 [published correction appears in Lancet. 2013;381(9867):628]. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2095-2128.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Murray  CJL, Vos  T, Lozano  R,  et al.  Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 [published correction appears in Lancet. 2013;381(9867):628]. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2197-2223.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Concha-Barrientos  M, Nelson  DI, Fingerhut  M, Driscoll  T, Leigh  J.  The global burden due to occupational injury. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):470-481.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lippel  K.  Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: an international perspective. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(6):519-536.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cameron  P, Gabbe  B.  The effect of compensation claims on outcomes after injury. Injury. 2009;40(9):905-906.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harris  I, Mulford  J, Solomon  M, van Gelder  JM, Young  J.  Association between compensation status and outcome after surgery: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2005;293(13):1644-1652.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cameron  ID, Rebbeck  T, Sindhusake  D,  et al.  Legislative change is associated with improved health status in people with whiplash. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(3):250-254.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cassidy  JD, Carroll  LJ, Côté  P, Lemstra  M, Berglund  A, Nygren  Å.  Effect of eliminating compensation for pain and suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(16):1179-1186.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Grant  G, Studdert  DM.  Poisoned chalice? a critical analysis of the evidence linking personal injury compensation processes with adverse health outcomes. Melb Univ Law Rev. 2009;33(3):865-885.
Robinson  JP, Loeser  JD. Effects of workers’ compensation systems on recovery from disabling injuries. In: Hasenbring  MA, Rusu  AC, Turk  DC, eds. From Acute to Chronic Back Pain: Risk Factors, Mechanisms, and Clinical Implications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012:355-376.
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(4):222-227.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spearing  NM, Connelly  LB.  Whiplash and the compensation hypothesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25)(suppl):S303-S308.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carroll  LJ, Connelly  LB, Spearing  NM, Côté  P, Buitenhuis  J, Kenardy  J.  Complexities in understanding the role of compensation-related factors on recovery from whiplash-associated disorders: discussion paper 2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(25)(suppl):S316-S321.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Elbers  NA, Hulst  L, Cuijpers  P, Akkermans  AJ, Bruinvels  DJ.  Do compensation processes impair mental health? a meta-analysis. Injury. 2013;44(5):674-683.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
O’Donnell  ML, Creamer  M, Elliott  P, Bryant  R, McFarlane  A, Silove  D.  Prior trauma and psychiatric history as risk factors for intentional and unintentional injury in Australia. J Trauma. 2009;66(2):470-476.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
O’Donnell  ML, Creamer  M, Pattison  P, Atkin  C.  Psychiatric morbidity following injury. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(3):507-514.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bryant  RA, O’Donnell  ML, Creamer  M, McFarlane  AC, Clark  CR, Silove  D.  The psychiatric sequelae of traumatic injury. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(3):312-320.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kay  T, Harrington  DE, Adams  R, ; American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine.  Definition of mild traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1993;8(3):86-87.
Link to Article
Sheehan  DV, Lecrubier  Y, Sheehan  KH,  et al.  The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(suppl 20):22-57.
PubMed
Blake  DD, Weathers  FW, Nagy  LM,  et al.  The development of a clinician-administered PTSD scale. J Trauma Stress. 1995;8(1):75-90.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ustun  TB, Kostanjsek  N, Chatterji  S, Rehm  J, eds. Measuring Health and Disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
Andrews  G, Kemp  A, Sunderland  M, Von Korff  M, Ustun  TB.  Normative data for the 12 item WHO disability assessment schedule 2.0. PLoS One. 2009;4(12):e8343.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zigmond  AS, Snaith  RP.  The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361-370.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bjelland  I, Dahl  AA, Haug  TT, Neckelmann  D.  The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52(2):69-77.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
World Health Organization. The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) – BREF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
Brunner  E, Marmot  M. Social organization, stress, and health. In: Marmot  M, Wilkinson  R, eds. Social Determinants of Health.2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2006:6-30.
Greenberg  J.  Organizational injustice as an occupational health risk. Acad Manag Ann.2010;4(1):205-243.
Link to Article
Colquitt  JA.  On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386-400.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lind  EA, Tyler  TR. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1988.
Franche  RL, Severin  CN, Lee  H,  et al.  Perceived justice of compensation process for return-to-work: development and validation of a scale. Psychol Inj Law.2009;2:225-237.
Link to Article
Strunin  L, Boden  LI.  The workers’ compensation system: worker friend or foe? Am J Ind Med. 2004;45(4):338-345.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lippel  K.  Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: a Québec study. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007;30(4-5):427-443.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
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 Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):349-366.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Baker  SP, O’Neill  B, Haddon  W  Jr, Long  WB.  The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974;14(3):187-196.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ndjaboué  R, Brisson  C, Vézina  M.  Organisational justice and mental health: a systematic review of prospective studies. Occup Environ Med. 2012;69(10):694-700.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kivimäki  M, Elovainio  M, Vahtera  J, Ferrie  JE.  Organisational justice and health of employees: prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(1):27-34.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
De Vogli  R, Ferrie  JE, Chandola  T, Kivimäki  M, Marmot  MG.  Unfairness and health: evidence from the Whitehall II Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(6):513-518.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spearing  NM, Connelly  LB, Nghiem  HS, Pobereskin  L.  Research on injury compensation and health outcomes: ignoring the problem of reverse causality led to a biased conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1219-1226.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Van Beeck  EF, Larsen  CF, Lyons  RA, Meerding  WJ, Mulder  S, Essink-Bot  ML.  Guidelines for the conduction of follow-up studies measuring injury-related disability. J Trauma. 2007;62(2):534-550.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilson  R, Derrett  S, Hansen  P, Langley  J.  Retrospective evaluation versus population norms for the measurement of baseline health status. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:68.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kendrick  D, Vinogradova  Y, Coupland  C,  et al; UK Burden of Injuries Study Group.  Recovery from injury: the UK burden of injury multicentre longitudinal study. Inj Prev. 2013;19(6):370-381.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Polinder  S, van Beeck  EF, Essink-Bot  ML,  et al.  Functional outcome at 2.5, 5, 9, and 24 months after injury in the Netherlands. J Trauma. 2007;62(1):133-141.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Holbrook  TL, Anderson  JP, Sieber  WJ, Browner  D, Hoyt  DB.  Outcome after major trauma: 12-month and 18-month follow-up results from the Trauma Recovery Project. J Trauma. 1999;46(5):765-773.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Langley  J, Davie  G, Wilson  S,  et al.  Difficulties in functioning 1 year after injury: the role of preinjury sociodemographic and health characteristics, health care and injury-related factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(7):1277-1286.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Coumarelos  C, Macourt  D, People  J,  et al. Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales; 2012.
Currie  A. The Legal Problems of Everyday Life: The Nature, Extent and Consequences of Justiciable Problems Experienced by Canadians. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Department of Justice; 2007.
Genn  H. Paths to Justice: What People Do and Think About Going to Law. Oxford, England: Hart; 1999.
Pleasence  P, Balmer  N, Buck  A. Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social Justice.2nd ed. Norwich, England: The Stationery Office; 2006.
O’Donnell  ML, Lau  W, Tipping  S,  et al.  Stepped early psychological intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders, and depression following serious injury. J Trauma Stress. 2012;25(2):125-133.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Supplement.

eAppendix. Compensation Schemes

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,938 Views
6 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Prospective Studies

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Prospective Studies

×