Prospective outcomes of injury study

Derrett, Sarah; Langley, John Desmond; Hokowhitu, Brendan; Ameratunga, Shanthi; Hansen, Paul; Davie, Gabrielle; Wyeth, Emma; Lilley, Rebbecca

doi:10.1136/ip.2009.022558

Cited by 45 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We investigated persons with injury aged at least 18 years who were included in two Australian registries – that is, the Victorian State Trauma Registry 16 , 17 and the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry 15 –in the United Kingdom Burden of Injury Study in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 18 the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study in New Zealand, 14 the National Study on Costs and Outcomes of Trauma in the United States of America 13 and the Dutch Injury Patient Survey in the Netherlands 12 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disability weights based on patient-reported data from a multinational injury cohort

Gabbe

Lyons

Simpson

et al. 2016

Bull. World Health Organ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo create patient-based disability weights for individual injury diagnosis codes and nature-of-injury classifications, for use, as an alternative to panel-based weights, in studies on the burden of disease.MethodsSelf-reported data based on the EQ-5D standardized measure of health status were collected from 29 770 participants in the Injury-VIBES injury cohort study, which covered Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. The data were combined to calculate new disability weights for each common injury classification and for each type of diagnosis covered by the 10th revision of the International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. Weights were calculated separately for hospital admissions and presentations confined to emergency departments.FindingsThere were 29 770 injury cases with at least one EQ-5D score. The mean age of the participants providing data was 51 years. Most participants were male and almost a third had road traffic injuries. The new disability weights were higher for admitted cases than for cases confined to emergency departments and higher than the corresponding weights used by the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study. Long-term disability was common in most categories of injuries.ConclusionInjury is often a chronic disorder and burden of disease estimates should reflect this. Application of the new weights to burden studies would substantially increase estimates of disability-adjusted life-years and provide a more accurate reflection of the impact of injuries on peoples’ lives.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disability weights based on patient-reported data from a multinational injury cohort

Gabbe

Lyons

Simpson

et al. 2016

Bull. World Health Organ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Injured New Zealanders’ valuations of their own health on the EQ-5D were obtained from the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study (POIS), a prospective cohort study of injured people aged between 18 and 64 years [13,14]. POIS participants were recruited from entitlement claims registered between December 2007 and June 2009 with the Accident Compensation Corporation, New Zealand’s government-controlled, no-fault injury compensation insurance scheme.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter valuations were collected between 2007 and 2009 in the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study [13,14]. We also investigate which of the EQ-5D’s dimensions are most strongly associated with the injured population valuations and compare the results with equivalent findings from the 1999 general population study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of injured patient and general population valuations of EQ-5D health states for New Zealand

Wilson

Hansen

Langley

et al. 2014

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA near-universal finding internationally is that patient valuations of their own health, represented using the EQ-5D system, are mostly higher than general population valuations of the same EQ-5D states. This paper investigates whether this result also applies to New Zealand. Despite the EQ-5D’s widespread use for cost-utility analysis in New Zealand, in particular by the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) for health technology assessments, no previous studies comparing patient and general population valuations have included data for New Zealand.MethodsValuations of 13 EQ-5D health states from a 1999 survey of the New Zealand general population (n = 396) are compared with injured New Zealanders’ (n = 2099) valuations of their own health (also represented on the EQ-5D) collected between 2007 and 2009 in the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study. Which EQ-5D dimensions are most strongly associated with the population valuations is also investigated.ResultsInjured population valuations are higher (better-rated health) than general population valuations for all 13 health states considered except 11111 (no problems on any EQ-5D dimension). This difference, which tends to be larger the ‘worse’ the state, is statistically significant at the 10% level for most of the states. State 11111 is rated significantly lower by the injured population than the general population. Pain/discomfort is more important in determining valuations for the general population than for injured people, whereas problems with self-care are more important for the injured population; anxiety/depression is important in both general and injured population valuations.ConclusionsConsistent with the international literature, injured people’s valuations of their own health are mostly higher than the general population’s hypothetical valuations of the same EQ-5D states for New Zealand. These differences are practically significant in the sense that they are larger than minimally important differences for the EQ-5D from the literature, and they appear capable of significantly affecting CUA results.

show abstract

“…Consent was obtained verbally from each participant. More detail on the recruitment protocol is provided elsewhere [9]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPoorer 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.MethodsWorkforce 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionOur 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.

show abstract

Prospective outcomes of injury study

Abstract: Separate regression models will be developed for each of the outcomes. Repeated measures outcomes will be modelled using general estimating equation models and generalised linear mixed models.

Cited by 45 publications

References 49 publications

Disability weights based on patient-reported data from a multinational injury cohort

Disability weights based on patient-reported data from a multinational injury cohort

A comparison of injured patient and general population valuations of EQ-5D health states for New Zealand

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About