澳大利亚腰背痛工人使用心理健康服务的模式:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-24 DOI:10.1007/s10926-024-10180-4
S E Gray, M Di Donato, L R Sheehan, R Iles, A Collie
{"title":"澳大利亚腰背痛工人使用心理健康服务的模式:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"S E Gray, M Di Donato, L R Sheehan, R Iles, A Collie","doi":"10.1007/s10926-024-10180-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the volume, timing and provider of mental health services provided to workers with accepted low back pain (LBP) claims, and to identify determinants of service volume and time to first mental health service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using claim and service-level workers' compensation data from four Australian states (Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria) for LBP claims with at least one mental health service lodged between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2015. Mental health services occurring 30 days prior to 730 days following claim acceptance were examined. Outcomes were number of mental health services and time (weeks) from claim acceptance to first service, calculated overall, by provider and interaction type, and by independent variables (age group, sex, time loss duration, financial year of lodgement, jurisdiction, socioeconomic status, remoteness). Negative binomial and Cox regression models examined differences between service volume and time to first service by independent variables, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of workers with LBP claims who accessed mental health services, psychologist services were most common (used by 91.2% of workers) and 16% of workers saw multiple provider types. Number of services increased with time loss duration, as did time to first service. Victorian workers had the most services, yet accessed them latest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Psychologist services were most common, longer duration claims used more mental health services but accessed them later, and there were a number of jurisdictional differences. Results suggest opportunities for workers' compensation authorities to provide, to those who may benefit, greater and earlier access to mental health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"913-922"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11550282/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patterns of Mental Health Service Use in Australian Workers with Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"S E Gray, M Di Donato, L R Sheehan, R Iles, A Collie\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10926-024-10180-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the volume, timing and provider of mental health services provided to workers with accepted low back pain (LBP) claims, and to identify determinants of service volume and time to first mental health service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using claim and service-level workers' compensation data from four Australian states (Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria) for LBP claims with at least one mental health service lodged between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2015. Mental health services occurring 30 days prior to 730 days following claim acceptance were examined. Outcomes were number of mental health services and time (weeks) from claim acceptance to first service, calculated overall, by provider and interaction type, and by independent variables (age group, sex, time loss duration, financial year of lodgement, jurisdiction, socioeconomic status, remoteness). Negative binomial and Cox regression models examined differences between service volume and time to first service by independent variables, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of workers with LBP claims who accessed mental health services, psychologist services were most common (used by 91.2% of workers) and 16% of workers saw multiple provider types. Number of services increased with time loss duration, as did time to first service. Victorian workers had the most services, yet accessed them latest.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Psychologist services were most common, longer duration claims used more mental health services but accessed them later, and there were a number of jurisdictional differences. Results suggest opportunities for workers' compensation authorities to provide, to those who may benefit, greater and earlier access to mental health care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48035,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"913-922\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11550282/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10180-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10180-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:描述为接受腰背痛(LBP)理赔的工人提供的心理健康服务的数量、时间和提供者,并确定服务数量和首次心理健康服务时间的决定因素:利用澳大利亚四个州(昆士兰州、南澳大利亚州、西澳大利亚州和维多利亚州)的索赔和服务层面的工伤赔偿数据,对 2011 年 7 月 1 日至 2015 年 6 月 30 日期间至少提供过一次心理健康服务的腰背痛索赔进行分析。对理赔受理前 30 天至理赔受理后 730 天内发生的心理健康服务进行了研究。结果为心理健康服务的次数和从接受理赔到首次服务的时间(周),按总体、提供者和交互类型以及自变量(年龄组、性别、时间损失持续时间、提出理赔的财政年度、管辖区、社会经济地位、偏远地区)计算。负二项回归模型和考克斯回归模型分别按自变量检验了服务量和首次服务时间之间的差异:在申请枸杞伤痛索赔并获得心理健康服务的工人中,心理医生服务最为常见(91.2%的工人使用过),16%的工人接受过多种类型的医疗服务。服务次数随着时间损失持续时间的延长而增加,首次服务时间也是如此。维多利亚州的工人获得的服务最多,但获得服务的时间最晚:结论:心理医生服务最为常见,工伤索赔持续时间较长的工人使用的心理健康服务较多,但获得服务的时间较晚,而且存在一些辖区差异。结果表明,工人赔偿机构有机会为那些可能受益的人提供更多和更早的心理保健服务。
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

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
Patterns of Mental Health Service Use in Australian Workers with Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Purpose: To describe the volume, timing and provider of mental health services provided to workers with accepted low back pain (LBP) claims, and to identify determinants of service volume and time to first mental health service.

Methods: Using claim and service-level workers' compensation data from four Australian states (Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria) for LBP claims with at least one mental health service lodged between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2015. Mental health services occurring 30 days prior to 730 days following claim acceptance were examined. Outcomes were number of mental health services and time (weeks) from claim acceptance to first service, calculated overall, by provider and interaction type, and by independent variables (age group, sex, time loss duration, financial year of lodgement, jurisdiction, socioeconomic status, remoteness). Negative binomial and Cox regression models examined differences between service volume and time to first service by independent variables, respectively.

Results: Of workers with LBP claims who accessed mental health services, psychologist services were most common (used by 91.2% of workers) and 16% of workers saw multiple provider types. Number of services increased with time loss duration, as did time to first service. Victorian workers had the most services, yet accessed them latest.

Conclusions: Psychologist services were most common, longer duration claims used more mental health services but accessed them later, and there were a number of jurisdictional differences. Results suggest opportunities for workers' compensation authorities to provide, to those who may benefit, greater and earlier access to mental health care.

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
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Tensions of Low-Back Pain and Lifting; Bridging Clinical Low-Back Pain and Occupational Lifting Guidelines. Correction: Organisational Policies and Practices for the Inclusion of Vulnerable Workers: A Scoping Review of the Employer's Perspective. Social Insurance Literacy Among the Sick-listed-A Study of Clients' Comprehension and Self-Rated System Comprehensibility of the Sickness Insurance System. Evaluating Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation Services Among Injured Workers Treated in a Canadian Workers' Compensation System: A Population-Based Study. Return-to-Work Coordinators' Perceptions of Their Roles Relative to Workers: A Discourse Analysis.
×
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