4.2 Review

Dying for work: The magnitude of US mortality from selected causes of death associated with occupation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 461-482

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.10216

关键词

occupation; attributable fraction; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Deaths due to occupational disease and injury place a heavy burden on society in terms of economic costs and human suffering. Methods We estimate the annual deaths due to selected diseases for which an occupational association is reasonably well established and quantifiable, by calculation of attributable fractions (AFs), with full documentation; the deaths due to occupational injury are then added to derive an estimated number of annual deaths due to occupation. Results Using 1997 US mortality data, the estimated annual burden of occupational disease mortality resulting from selected respiratory diseases, cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic renal failure, and hepatitis is 49,000, with a range from 26, 000 to 72,000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are about 6,200 work-related injury deaths annually. Adding disease and injury data, we estimate that there are a total of 55,200 US deaths annually resulting from occupational disease or injury (range 32,200-78,200). Conclusions Our estimate is in the range reported by previous investigators, although we have restricted ourselves more than others to only those diseases with well-established occupational etiology, biasing our estimates conservatively. The underlying assumptions and data used to generate the estimates are well documented, so our estimates may be updated as new data emerges on occupational risks and exposed populations, providing an advantage over previous studies. We estimate that occupational deaths are the 8th leading cause of death in the US, after diabetes (64,751) but ahead of suicide (30,575), and greater than the annual number of motor vehicle deaths per year (43,501). (C) 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据