Rasa Ruseckaite, Alex Collie, Maatje Scheepers, Bianca Brijnath, Agnieszka Kosny, Danielle Mazza
Abstract
Work-related injuries resulting in long-term sickness certification can have serious consequences for injured workers, their families, society, compensation schemes, employers and healthcare service providers. The aim of this study was to establish what factors potentially are associated with the type of sickness certification that General Practitioners (GPs) provide to injured workers following work-related injury in Victoria, Australia.
This was a retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted for compensation claims lodged by adults from 2003 to 2010. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of various factors on the likelihood that an injured worker would receive an alternate/modified duties (ALT, n = 28,174) vs. Unfit for work (UFW, n = 91,726) certificate from their GP.
A total of 119,900 claims were analysed. The majority of the injured workers were males, mostly age of 45-54 years. Nearly half of the workers (49.9 %) with UFW and 36.9 % with ALT certificates had musculoskeletal injuries. The multivariate regression analysis revealed that for most occupations older men (55-64 years) were less likely to receive an ALT certificate, (OR = 0.86, (95%CI, 0.81 - 0.91)). Workers suffering musculoskeletal injuries or occupational diseases were nearly twice or three times at higher odds of receiving an ALT certificate when compared to fractures. Being seen by a GP experienced with workers' compensation increased the odds of receiving ALT certificate (OR = 1.16, (95%CI, 1.11 - 1.20)). Occupation and industry types were also important factors determining the type of certificate issued to the injured worker.
This study suggests that specific groups of injured workers (i.e. older age, workers with mental health issues, in rural areas) are less likely to receive ALT certificates.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#14,502
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,530
of 303,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#179
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
