ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2022
Differential underestimation of work-related reinjury risk for older workers: Challenges to producing accurate rate estimates.
Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- LVAD Bridge Duration, Post-transplant Employment, and Return to Work: A National Registry Analysis of Heart Transplant Recipients.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Wellbeing After Finalization of a Workers' Compensation Claim: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder workers are increasingly represented in the U.S. workforce, but frequently work part-timeor intermittently, hindering accurate injury rate estimates. To reduce the impact of reporting barriers on rate comparisons, we focused on reinjury (both injury recurrence and new injury) among workers with a workers' compensation claim, assessing: (1) reinjury risk for workers age 65+ versus <65; (2) importance of work-time at-risk measurement for rate estimates and comparisons; and (3) age distribution of potential risk factors.
methodsWashington State workers' compensation claims for a retrospective cohort of workers with work-related permanent impairments were linked to state wage files. Reinjury rates were calculated for the cohort (N = 11,184) and a survey sample (N = 582), using both calendar time and full-time equivalent (FTE)-adjusted time. Risk differentials were assessed using rate ratios and adjusted survival models.
resultsThe rate ratio for workers age 65+ (vs. <65) was 0.45 (p < 0.001) using calendar time, but 0.70 (p = 0.07) using FTE-adjusted time. Survey-based rates were 35.7 per 100 worker-years for workers age 65+, versus 14.8 for <65. Workers age 65+ (vs. <65) were more likely to work <100% FTE, but were similar regarding job strain, their ability to handle physical job demands, and their comfort reporting unsafe conditions or injuries.
conclusionsAccounting for work-time at risk substantially improves age-based reinjury comparisons. Although the marked elevation in self-reported reinjury risk for older workers might be a small-sample artifact (n = 34), workers age 65+ are likely at higher risk than previously appreciated. Ongoing workforce trends demand increased attention to injury surveillance and prevention for older workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.