Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407315›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Economic burden of work injuries and diseases: a framework and application in five European Union countries.

Emile Tompa, Amirabbas Mofidi, Swenneke van den Heuvel, Thijmen van Bree, Frithjof Michaelsen, Young Jung, Lukas Porsch, Martijn van Emmerik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Economic Burden of Trauma-Related Injuries in Iran in 2019.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Emile TompaIWH (Institute for Work & Health), 400 University Avenue, Suite 1800, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1S5, Canada. etompa@iwh.on.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-9851-3853
Amirabbas MofidiIWH (Institute for Work & Health), 400 University Avenue, Suite 1800, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1S5, Canada.
Swenneke van den HeuvelTNO (The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research), Hague, Netherlands.
Thijmen van BreeTNO (The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research), Hague, Netherlands.
Frithjof MichaelsenVVA (Valdani Vicari & Associati), Milan, Italy.
Young JungIWH (Institute for Work & Health), 400 University Avenue, Suite 1800, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1S5, Canada.
Lukas PorschVVA (Valdani Vicari & Associati), Milan, Italy.
Martijn van EmmerikTNO (The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research), Hague, Netherlands.

Funding

European Agency for Safety & Health at Work 2017/S 019-030991
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimates of the economic burden of work injuries and diseases can help policymakers prioritize occupational health and safety policies and interventions in order to best allocate scarce resources. Several attempts have been made to estimate these economic burdens at the national level, but most have not included a comprehensive list of cost components, and none have attempted to implement a standard approach across several countries. The aim of our study is to develop a framework for estimating the economic burden of work injuries and diseases and implement it for selected European Union countries.

methodsWe develop an incidence cost framework using a bottom-up approach to estimate the societal burden of work injuries and diseases and implement it for five European Union countries. Three broad categories of costs are considered-direct healthcare, indirect productivity and intangible health-related quality of life costs. We begin with data on newly diagnosed work injuries and diseases from calendar year 2015. We consider lifetime costs for cases across all categories and incurred by all stakeholders. Sensitivity analysis is undertaken for key parameters.

resultsIndirect costs are the largest part of the economic burden, then direct costs and intangible costs. As a percentage of GDP, the highest overall costs are for Poland (10.4%), then Italy (6.7%), The Netherlands (3.6%), Germany (3.3%) and Finland (2.7%). The Netherlands has the highest per case costs (€75,342), then Italy (€58,411), Germany (€44,919), Finland (€43,069) and Poland (€38,918). Costs per working-age population are highest for Italy (€4956), then The Netherlands (€2930), Poland (€2793), Germany (€2527) and Finland (€2331).

conclusionsOur framework serves as a template for estimating the economic burden of work injuries and diseases across countries in the European Union and elsewhere. Results can assist policymakers with identifying health and safety priority areas based on the magnitude of components, particularly when stratified by key characteristics such as industry, injury/disease, age and sex. Case costing can serve as an input into the economic evaluation of prevention initiatives. Comparisons across countries provide insights into the relevant performance of health and safety systems.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessQuality of LifeEuropean UnionFinlandGermanyHealth Care CostsHumansItalyNetherlandsPolandAttributable fractionsBottom-upEurostatIncidenceNational-levelStakeholdersUnderestimation

Identifiers

PMID33407315
PMCPMC7789331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.