ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2024
Using the Functional Comorbidity Index with administrative workers' compensation data: Utility, validity, and caveats.
Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic health conditions impact worker outcomes but are challenging to measure using administrative workers' compensation (WC) data. The Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI) was developed to predict functional outcomes in community-based adult populations, but has not been validated for WC settings. We assessed a WC-based FCI (additive index of 18 conditions) for identifying chronic conditions and predicting work outcomes.
methodsWC data were linked to a prospective survey in Ohio (N = 512) and Washington (N = 2,839). Workers were interviewed 6 weeks and 6 months after work-related injury. Observed prevalence and concordance were calculated; survey data provided the reference standard for WC data. Predictive validity and utility for control of confounding were assessed using 6-month work-related outcomes.
resultsThe WC-based FCI had high specificity but low sensitivity and was weakly associated with work-related outcomes. The survey-based FCI suggested more comorbidity in the Ohio sample (Ohio mean = 1.38; Washington mean = 1.14), whereas the WC-based FCI suggested more comorbidity in the Washington sample (Ohio mean = 0.10; Washington mean = 0.33). In the confounding assessment, adding the survey-based FCI to the base model moved the state effect estimates slightly toward null (<1% change). However, substituting the WC-based FCI moved the estimate away from null (8.95% change).
conclusionsThe WC-based FCI may be useful for identifying specific subsets of workers with chronic conditions, but less useful for chronic condition prevalence. Using the WC-based FCI cross-state appeared to introduce substantial confounding. We strongly advise caution-including state-specific analyses with a reliable reference standard-before using a WC-based FCI in studies involving multiple states.
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.