4.2 Article

Risk Factors for Developing Concurrent Posttraumatic Stress Injury After Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injury A Case-Control Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
Volume 64, Issue 9, Pages E579-E584

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002621

Keywords

rehabilitation; posttraumatic stress disorder; public safety personnel; risk factors; compensation and redress

Funding

  1. Alberta Labour and Immigration [20SPHIFR33-2]
  2. Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study identifies risk factors for the development of concurrent posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) among workers with work-related musculoskeletal injury (MSI). Factors such as type of accident, fracture or dislocation, being in the public safety profession, and lower education level were found to be predictors of concurrent MSI and PTSI.
Objective This study aimed to study risk factors for developing concurrent posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) among workers experiencing work-related musculoskeletal injury (MSI). Methods A case-control study was conducted using workers' compensation data on injured workers undergoing rehabilitation programs for concurrent MSI and PTSI (cases) and MSI only (controls). A variety of measures known at the time of the compensable injury were entered into logistic regression models. Results Of the 1948 workers included, 215 had concurrent MSI and PTSI. Concurrent MSI and PTSI were predicted by type of accident (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 25.8), experiencing fracture or dislocation fracture or dislocation (adjusted OR, 3.7), being public safety personnel (adjusted OR, 3.1), and lower level of education (adjusted OR, 1.9). Conclusions Experiencing a concurrent PTSI diagnosis with MSI after work-related accident and injury appears related to occupation, type of accident, and educational background.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available