高收入国家致命职业伤害登记的准确性:2000-2003年挪威四个登记系统中发现的病例数与双源捕获-再捕获估计的比较

Finn Gjertsen , Johan Lund , Ebba Wergeland
{"title":"高收入国家致命职业伤害登记的准确性:2000-2003年挪威四个登记系统中发现的病例数与双源捕获-再捕获估计的比较","authors":"Finn Gjertsen ,&nbsp;Johan Lund ,&nbsp;Ebba Wergeland","doi":"10.1016/j.gloepi.2022.100072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Globally, work-related deaths (injuries and diseases) are a major social and public health problem. Register data on fatal occupational injuries in high-income countries may be considered to have high quality, especially when reporting is mandatory and regulated by law. We aimed to assess the accuracy of work-related injury death statistics in Norway, with reference to the Labour Inspection Authority and three other on-going registration systems (the cause-specific mortality register, the register for governmental compensations, and the register for insurance companies).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this register-based study, we used the capture-recapture technique to adjust for undercounting. We investigated whether the capture-recapture method using two or three sources gave a valid estimate of fatal occupational injuries as compared with the number of cases identified in four registers administrated by the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, Statistics Norway, the Labour and Welfare Administration, and Finance Norway. The inclusion criteria were fatal unintentional injuries among residents of Norway between 2000 and 2003 that occurred while working for income in private and public land-based industries. We obtained ethical and legal approvals.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In a period of four years (2000−2003), the Labour Inspection Authority registered 171 occupational injury deaths among residents employed in land-based industries. Two combinations of data sources gave capture-recapture estimates of 246 [95% CI 216; 279] and 265 [95% CI 234; 299] deaths. In total, 246 cases were identified in the four registration systems, which was 44% higher than the number of deaths registered by the Labour Inspection Authority. The Labour Inspection Authority had the most complete register out of the four registration systems.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The capture-recapture method used on two overlapping data sources gave highly valid estimates of the total deaths. We demonstrated the existence of significant weaknesses in the registration systems in a country considered to have high-quality register data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36311,"journal":{"name":"Global Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445985/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of fatal occupational injury registration in a high-income country: A comparison of two-source capture-recapture estimates with the number of cases identified in four register systems in Norway, 2000–2003\",\"authors\":\"Finn Gjertsen ,&nbsp;Johan Lund ,&nbsp;Ebba Wergeland\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gloepi.2022.100072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Globally, work-related deaths (injuries and diseases) are a major social and public health problem. Register data on fatal occupational injuries in high-income countries may be considered to have high quality, especially when reporting is mandatory and regulated by law. We aimed to assess the accuracy of work-related injury death statistics in Norway, with reference to the Labour Inspection Authority and three other on-going registration systems (the cause-specific mortality register, the register for governmental compensations, and the register for insurance companies).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this register-based study, we used the capture-recapture technique to adjust for undercounting. We investigated whether the capture-recapture method using two or three sources gave a valid estimate of fatal occupational injuries as compared with the number of cases identified in four registers administrated by the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, Statistics Norway, the Labour and Welfare Administration, and Finance Norway. The inclusion criteria were fatal unintentional injuries among residents of Norway between 2000 and 2003 that occurred while working for income in private and public land-based industries. We obtained ethical and legal approvals.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In a period of four years (2000−2003), the Labour Inspection Authority registered 171 occupational injury deaths among residents employed in land-based industries. Two combinations of data sources gave capture-recapture estimates of 246 [95% CI 216; 279] and 265 [95% CI 234; 299] deaths. In total, 246 cases were identified in the four registration systems, which was 44% higher than the number of deaths registered by the Labour Inspection Authority. The Labour Inspection Authority had the most complete register out of the four registration systems.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The capture-recapture method used on two overlapping data sources gave highly valid estimates of the total deaths. We demonstrated the existence of significant weaknesses in the registration systems in a country considered to have high-quality register data.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445985/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113322000025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113322000025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在全球范围内,与工作有关的死亡(伤害和疾病)是一个重大的社会和公共卫生问题。高收入国家关于致命职业伤害的登记数据可被认为具有高质量,特别是在报告是强制性和受法律管制的情况下。我们的目的是评估挪威工伤死亡统计数据的准确性,参照劳动监察局和其他三个正在进行的登记系统(特定原因死亡登记、政府赔偿登记和保险公司登记)。方法在这项基于记录的研究中,我们使用捕获-再捕获技术来调整漏记。我们调查了使用两个或三个来源的捕获-再捕获方法是否给出了致命职业伤害的有效估计,与由挪威劳动监察局、挪威统计局、劳工和福利管理局和挪威财政部管理的四个登记册中确定的病例数量相比。纳入标准是2000年至2003年期间挪威居民在私营和公共土地工业中为赚取收入而工作时发生的致命意外伤害。我们获得了道德和法律上的批准。结果在四年期间(2000 - 2003年),劳动监察局在陆地工业就业的居民中登记了171人因职业伤害死亡。两种数据来源的组合给出了捕获-再捕获的估计值为246 [95% CI 216;279]和265 [95% CI 234;299]死亡。在四个登记系统中总共发现了246起案件,比劳动监察局登记的死亡人数高出44%。在四个登记系统中,劳工视察局拥有最完整的登记册。结论在两个重叠数据源上使用的捕获-再捕获方法对总死亡人数给出了高度有效的估计。我们证明,在一个被认为拥有高质量登记数据的国家,登记系统存在重大弱点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accuracy of fatal occupational injury registration in a high-income country: A comparison of two-source capture-recapture estimates with the number of cases identified in four register systems in Norway, 2000–2003

Background

Globally, work-related deaths (injuries and diseases) are a major social and public health problem. Register data on fatal occupational injuries in high-income countries may be considered to have high quality, especially when reporting is mandatory and regulated by law. We aimed to assess the accuracy of work-related injury death statistics in Norway, with reference to the Labour Inspection Authority and three other on-going registration systems (the cause-specific mortality register, the register for governmental compensations, and the register for insurance companies).

Methods

In this register-based study, we used the capture-recapture technique to adjust for undercounting. We investigated whether the capture-recapture method using two or three sources gave a valid estimate of fatal occupational injuries as compared with the number of cases identified in four registers administrated by the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, Statistics Norway, the Labour and Welfare Administration, and Finance Norway. The inclusion criteria were fatal unintentional injuries among residents of Norway between 2000 and 2003 that occurred while working for income in private and public land-based industries. We obtained ethical and legal approvals.

Results

In a period of four years (2000−2003), the Labour Inspection Authority registered 171 occupational injury deaths among residents employed in land-based industries. Two combinations of data sources gave capture-recapture estimates of 246 [95% CI 216; 279] and 265 [95% CI 234; 299] deaths. In total, 246 cases were identified in the four registration systems, which was 44% higher than the number of deaths registered by the Labour Inspection Authority. The Labour Inspection Authority had the most complete register out of the four registration systems.

Conclusions

The capture-recapture method used on two overlapping data sources gave highly valid estimates of the total deaths. We demonstrated the existence of significant weaknesses in the registration systems in a country considered to have high-quality register data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Epidemiology
Global Epidemiology Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
39 days
期刊最新文献
A note on handling conditional missing values Tailored guidance to apply the Estimand framework to Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) studies Improving the timeliness of birth registration in Fiji through a financial incentive Predicting adolescent psychopathology from early life factors: A machine learning tutorial Challenging unverified assumptions in causal claims: Do gas stoves increase risk of pediatric asthma?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1