The Association Between Fault Attribution and Work Participation After Road Traffic Injury: A Registry-Based Observational Study

Georgina Lau, Belinda J. Gabbe, Alex Collie, Jennie Ponsford, Shanthi Ameratunga, Peter A. Cameron, James E. Harrison, Melita J. Giummarra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose To characterise associations between fault attribution and work participation and capacity after road traffic injury. Methods People aged 15–65 years, working pre-injury, without serious brain injury, who survived to 12 months after road traffic injury were included from two Victorian trauma registries (n = 2942). Fault profiles from linked compensation claims were defined as no other at fault, another at fault, denied another at fault, claimed another at fault, and unknown. Claimant reports in the denied and claimed another at fault groups contradicted police reports. Patients reported work capacity (Glasgow outcome scale-extended) and return to work (RTW) at 6, 12 and 24 months post-injury (early and sustained RTW, delayed RTW (≥ 12 months), failed RTW attempts, no RTW attempts). Analyses adjusted for demographic, clinical and injury covariates. Results The risk of not returning to work was higher if another was at fault [adjusted relative risk ratio (aRRR) = 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 2.17] or was claimed to be at fault (aRRR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.04, 2.41), and lower for those who denied that another was at fault (aRRR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.29, 0.91), compared to cases with no other at fault. Similarly, people had higher odds of work capacity limitations if another was at fault (12m: AOR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.24, 1.80; 24m: 1.63, 95% CI 1.35, 1.97) or was claimed to be at fault (12m: AOR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.16, 2.05; 24m: AOR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.34, 2.41), and lower odds if they denied another was at fault (6m: AOR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48, 0.95), compared to cases with no other at fault. Conclusion Targeted interventions are needed to support work participation in people at risk of poor RTW post-injury. While interventions targeting fault and justice-related attributions are currently lacking, these may be beneficial for people who believe that another caused their injury. Graphic Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Occupational Rehabilitation
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 9 Dec 2019

Keywords

  • Accidents
  • Injury
  • Recovery
  • Return to work
  • Traffic
  • Trauma

Cite this

@article{ebfe13c16bb1401a8e5545b7807e2dec,
title = "The Association Between Fault Attribution and Work Participation After Road Traffic Injury: A Registry-Based Observational Study",
abstract = "Purpose To characterise associations between fault attribution and work participation and capacity after road traffic injury. Methods People aged 15–65 years, working pre-injury, without serious brain injury, who survived to 12 months after road traffic injury were included from two Victorian trauma registries (n = 2942). Fault profiles from linked compensation claims were defined as no other at fault, another at fault, denied another at fault, claimed another at fault, and unknown. Claimant reports in the denied and claimed another at fault groups contradicted police reports. Patients reported work capacity (Glasgow outcome scale-extended) and return to work (RTW) at 6, 12 and 24 months post-injury (early and sustained RTW, delayed RTW (≥ 12 months), failed RTW attempts, no RTW attempts). Analyses adjusted for demographic, clinical and injury covariates. Results The risk of not returning to work was higher if another was at fault [adjusted relative risk ratio (aRRR) = 1.67, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 2.17] or was claimed to be at fault (aRRR = 1.58, 95{\%} CI 1.04, 2.41), and lower for those who denied that another was at fault (aRRR = 0.51, 95{\%} CI 0.29, 0.91), compared to cases with no other at fault. Similarly, people had higher odds of work capacity limitations if another was at fault (12m: AOR = 1.49, 95{\%} CI 1.24, 1.80; 24m: 1.63, 95{\%} CI 1.35, 1.97) or was claimed to be at fault (12m: AOR = 1.54, 95{\%} CI 1.16, 2.05; 24m: AOR = 1.80, 95{\%} CI 1.34, 2.41), and lower odds if they denied another was at fault (6m: AOR = 0.67, 95{\%} CI 0.48, 0.95), compared to cases with no other at fault. Conclusion Targeted interventions are needed to support work participation in people at risk of poor RTW post-injury. While interventions targeting fault and justice-related attributions are currently lacking, these may be beneficial for people who believe that another caused their injury. Graphic Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].",
keywords = "Accidents, Injury, Recovery, Return to work, Traffic, Trauma",
author = "Georgina Lau and Gabbe, {Belinda J.} and Alex Collie and Jennie Ponsford and Shanthi Ameratunga and Cameron, {Peter A.} and Harrison, {James E.} and Giummarra, {Melita J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s10926-019-09867-w",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation",
issn = "1053-0487",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Association Between Fault Attribution and Work Participation After Road Traffic Injury

T2 - A Registry-Based Observational Study

AU - Lau, Georgina

AU - Gabbe, Belinda J.

AU - Collie, Alex

AU - Ponsford, Jennie

AU - Ameratunga, Shanthi

AU - Cameron, Peter A.

AU - Harrison, James E.

AU - Giummarra, Melita J.

PY - 2019/12/9

Y1 - 2019/12/9

N2 - Purpose To characterise associations between fault attribution and work participation and capacity after road traffic injury. Methods People aged 15–65 years, working pre-injury, without serious brain injury, who survived to 12 months after road traffic injury were included from two Victorian trauma registries (n = 2942). Fault profiles from linked compensation claims were defined as no other at fault, another at fault, denied another at fault, claimed another at fault, and unknown. Claimant reports in the denied and claimed another at fault groups contradicted police reports. Patients reported work capacity (Glasgow outcome scale-extended) and return to work (RTW) at 6, 12 and 24 months post-injury (early and sustained RTW, delayed RTW (≥ 12 months), failed RTW attempts, no RTW attempts). Analyses adjusted for demographic, clinical and injury covariates. Results The risk of not returning to work was higher if another was at fault [adjusted relative risk ratio (aRRR) = 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 2.17] or was claimed to be at fault (aRRR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.04, 2.41), and lower for those who denied that another was at fault (aRRR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.29, 0.91), compared to cases with no other at fault. Similarly, people had higher odds of work capacity limitations if another was at fault (12m: AOR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.24, 1.80; 24m: 1.63, 95% CI 1.35, 1.97) or was claimed to be at fault (12m: AOR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.16, 2.05; 24m: AOR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.34, 2.41), and lower odds if they denied another was at fault (6m: AOR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48, 0.95), compared to cases with no other at fault. Conclusion Targeted interventions are needed to support work participation in people at risk of poor RTW post-injury. While interventions targeting fault and justice-related attributions are currently lacking, these may be beneficial for people who believe that another caused their injury. Graphic Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

AB - Purpose To characterise associations between fault attribution and work participation and capacity after road traffic injury. Methods People aged 15–65 years, working pre-injury, without serious brain injury, who survived to 12 months after road traffic injury were included from two Victorian trauma registries (n = 2942). Fault profiles from linked compensation claims were defined as no other at fault, another at fault, denied another at fault, claimed another at fault, and unknown. Claimant reports in the denied and claimed another at fault groups contradicted police reports. Patients reported work capacity (Glasgow outcome scale-extended) and return to work (RTW) at 6, 12 and 24 months post-injury (early and sustained RTW, delayed RTW (≥ 12 months), failed RTW attempts, no RTW attempts). Analyses adjusted for demographic, clinical and injury covariates. Results The risk of not returning to work was higher if another was at fault [adjusted relative risk ratio (aRRR) = 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29, 2.17] or was claimed to be at fault (aRRR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.04, 2.41), and lower for those who denied that another was at fault (aRRR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.29, 0.91), compared to cases with no other at fault. Similarly, people had higher odds of work capacity limitations if another was at fault (12m: AOR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.24, 1.80; 24m: 1.63, 95% CI 1.35, 1.97) or was claimed to be at fault (12m: AOR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.16, 2.05; 24m: AOR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.34, 2.41), and lower odds if they denied another was at fault (6m: AOR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48, 0.95), compared to cases with no other at fault. Conclusion Targeted interventions are needed to support work participation in people at risk of poor RTW post-injury. While interventions targeting fault and justice-related attributions are currently lacking, these may be beneficial for people who believe that another caused their injury. Graphic Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

KW - Accidents

KW - Injury

KW - Recovery

KW - Return to work

KW - Traffic

KW - Trauma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076746621&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10926-019-09867-w

DO - 10.1007/s10926-019-09867-w

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85076746621

JO - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

SN - 1053-0487

ER -