Being involved in a compensation process is associated with higher mental health complaints but three-quarters of the difference appeared to be already present at baseline. The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited quality of evidence. The difference at baseline may be explained by a selection bias or more anger and blame about the accident in the compensation group. The difference between baseline and follow-up may be explained by secondary gain and secondary victimisation. Future research should involve assessment of exposure to compensation processes, should analyse and correct for baseline differences, and could examine the effect of time, compensation scheme design, and claim settlement on (mental) health.

BackgroundMotor vehicle crashes (MVC) are associated with diminished mental health, and furthermore, evidence suggests the process of claiming compensation following an MVC further increases distress and impedes recovery. However, further research is required on why the compensation process is stressful. The aim of the current study is twofold. The first is to investigate whether the interaction with the insurance agency is associated with anxiety. The second is to explore qualitatively aspects of dissatisfaction with the compensation process.MethodsParticipants (N = 417) were injured people involved in a compensation scheme after a motor vehicle crash (MVC) in New South Wales, Australia. Interviews were conducted by phone at 2, 12 and 24 months after the MVC. A suite of measures were used including compensation related measures, pain catastrophising and the anxiety/depressed mood subscale of the EuroQol. The association between predictors and anxiety/depressed mood as the dependent variable were analysed using forward logistic regression analyses. The comments about dissatisfaction with the insurance company were analysed qualitatively.ResultsThe strongest predictor of mood status found was pain-related catastrophising, followed by dissatisfaction with the insurance company. Dissatisfaction was attributed to (1) lack of communication and lack of information, (2) delayed or denied payments of compensation, (3) slow treatment approval and discussions about causality, (4) too much complicated paperwork, and (5) discussions about who was at-fault.ConclusionsFactors were found that contribute to anxiety in the compensation process. The association between catastrophising and anxiety/depressive mood suggests it is worthwhile further investigating the role of negative cognitions in compensation processes. People who score highly on catastrophising after the MVC may benefit from early psychological interventions aiming at addressing negative cognitions. Another important stressor is the interaction with the insurance company. Stress is associated with problems of communication, medical treatment, and claim settlement. This study additionally draws attention to some under recognised problems such as delayed payments. Pro-active claims management could address some of the identified issues, which could improve health of injured people after a MVC.

No abstract

The finding that the interaction with insurance companies was considered less fair than the interaction with lawyers may imply that insurers could improve their interaction with claimants, e.g. by communicating more directly. The result that claimants with mild injuries and with trunk/back injuries considered the compensation process to be less fair than those with respectively severe injuries and injuries to other body parts suggests that especially the former two require an attentive treatment. Finally, the fact that procedural justice was positively correlated with quality of life could implicate that it is possible to improve claimants' health in compensation processes by enhancing procedural justice, e.g. by increasing the ability for claimants to express their views and feelings and by involving claimants in the decision-making process.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundResearch has shown that current claims settlement process can have a negative impact on psychological and physical recovery of personal injury (PI) victims. One of the explanations for the negative impact on health is that the claims settlement process is a stressful experience and victims suffer from renewed victimization caused by the claims settlement process. PI victims can experience a lack of information, lack of involvement, lack of 'voice', and poor communication. We present the first study that aims to empower PI victims with respect to the negative impact of the claims settlement process by means of an internet intervention.Methods/designThe study is a two armed, randomized controlled trial (RCT), in which 170 PI victims are randomized to either the intervention or control group. The intervention group will get access to a website providing 1) an information module, so participants learn what is happening and what to expect during the claims settlement process, and 2) an e-coach module, so participants learn to cope with problems they experience during the claims settlement process. The control group will get access to a website with hyperlinks to commonly available information only. Participants will be recruited via a PI claims settlement office. Participants are included if they have been involved in a traffic accident which happened less than two years ago, and are at least 18 years old.The main study parameter is the increase of empowerment within the intervention group compared to the control group. Empowerment will be measured by the mastery scale and a self-efficacy scale. The secondary outcomes are perceived justice, burden, well being, work ability, knowledge, amount of damages, and lawyer-client communication. Data are collected at baseline (T0 measurement before randomization), at three months, six months, and twelve months after baseline. Analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle.DiscussionThis study evaluates the effectiveness of an internet intervention aimed at empowerment of PI victims. The results will give more insight into the impact of compensation proceedings on health over time, and they can have important consequences for legal claims settlement. Strengths and limitations of this study are discussed.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR2360

Blame towards the wrongdoer can be a source of distress for people who are injured in a transport accident. The association between blame and psychological stress is well investigated. In contrast, not much is known about blame and health-care utilization. It is important to investigate whether blame is associated with health-care consumption because it may contribute to our knowledge about what factors have an effect on recovery after transport accidents. The current study involved a total of 2940 participants, who were selected from a compensation database in Victoria, Australia. Health-care utilization, in general, and utilization of psychologist and physiotherapist visits, in particular, were defined as the outcome. In contrast to a previous study, it was found that blaming the other was associated with greater health-care utilization, in general, and psychologists and physiotherapist visits, specifically. Another relevant finding was that, although the study involved a sample that was created to show an equal ratio of blame/no-blame, 61 % blamed the other driver; therefore, blame may be a motive to lodge a claim. Finally, we discuss the role that psychologists and claim managers could play in reducing feelings of blame in order to reduce health-care utilization and possibly improve recovery.