Post-injury long-term sickness absence and risk of disability pension: The role of socioeconomic status.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has identified low socioeconomic status (SES) as a risk factor for long-term sickness absence (LTSA) and disability pension (DP) following trauma. However, most studies lack information on medical diagnoses, limiting our understanding of the underlying factors. To address this gap, we retrieved information about diagnostic causes for receipt of welfare benefits to explore the role of SES in the transition from post-injury LTSA to permanent DP among the working population in Norway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of all Norwegian residents aged 25-59 years registered with a spell of LTSA due to injury commencing in the period 2000-2003. This cohort was followed through 2014 by linking information on receipt of welfare benefits with sociodemographic data from administrative registers. SES was defined as a composite measure of educational attainment and income level. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for all-cause and diagnosis-specific DP according to SES, adjusting for sex, age, marital status, immigrant status and healthcare region of residence. RESULTS: Of 53,937 adults with post-injury LTSA, 9,665 (18 %) transferred to DP during follow-up. The crude risk of DP was highest for LTSA spells due to poisoning and head injuries. Overall, individuals in the lowest SES category had twice the risk of DP compared to those in the highest SES category (HR = 2.25, 95 % CI 2.13-2.38). The difference by SES was greatest for LTSA due to poisoning and smallest for LTSA due to head injuries. A majority (75 %) of DP recipients had a non-injury diagnosis as the primary cause of DP. The socioeconomic gradient was more pronounced for non-injury causes of DP (HR = 2.47, 95 % CI 2.31-2.63) than for injury causes (HR = 1.73, 95 % CI 1.56-1.92) and was especially steep for DP due to musculoskeletal diseases and mental and behavioural disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between SES and DP varied by both the type of injury that caused LTSA and the diagnosis used to grant DP, highlighting the importance of taking diagnostic information into account when investigating long-term consequences of injuries.

A cross-sectional study of the relationship between injuries and quality of life, psychological distress, sleeping problems, and global subjective health in adults from three Norwegian counties.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining associations between injuries and outcomes like quality of life and psychological distress are important to understand a broader range of possible consequences of injuries for population health. AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine associations between self-reported injury and quality of life, psychological distress, sleeping problems, and global subjective health. METHODS: The sample was drawn from the Norwegian National Population Register. Data were collected among the general adult populations in three Norwegian counties in 2019-2020 (response rate 45.3%, n = 74,030). Exposure variables were being injured during the last 12 months, cause of injury (if more than one, the most serious one), and functional impairment due to injuries. Outcome variables included measures of total quality of life, global quality of life, positive affect, negative affect, positive social relations, social capital (trust, belongingness, feeling safe), psychological distress, sleep problems, loneliness, and global subjective health. Data were analysed with General Linear Modelling in SPSS Complex. RESULTS: Reporting to have been injured once during the last 12 months was associated with slightly elevated levels of psychological distress, sleeping problems, and loneliness, and lower mean scores on quality-of-life indicators and global subjective health. Reporting being injured twice or more showed more pronounced contrasts to the reference group on the same outcomes, with Cohen's d-values (absolute numbers) ranging from 0.17 to 0.54. For having been victim to violence, d-values ranged from 0.30 to 1.01. Moderate functional impairment due to injuries was associated with less favourable scores on all outcomes (d ranging from 0.15 to 0.71). For strong functional impairment d-values ranged from 0.35 to 1.17. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated levels of distress and reduced levels of quality of life are particularly associated with multiple injuries, being victim to violence, and functional impairment due to injuries. Prospective, longitudinal studies with high quality instruments and large samples, allowing adjustment for baseline values of outcome variables, and utilization of state-of-the-art statistical techniques, would bring this research closer to examining causality.

Forearm fractures - are we counting them all? An attempt to identify and include the missing fractures treated in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Norway has a high incidence of forearm fractures, however, the incidence rates based on secondary care registers can be underestimated, as some fractures are treated exclusively in primary care. We estimated the proportion of forearm fracture diagnoses registered exclusively in primary care and assessed the agreement between diagnosis for forearm fractures in primary and secondary care. DESIGN: Quality assurance study combining nationwide data from 2008 to 2019 on forearm fractures registered in primary care (Norwegian Control and Payment of Health Reimbursement) and secondary care (the Norwegian Patient Registry). SETTING AND PATIENTS: Forearm fracture diagnoses in patients aged ≥20 treated in primary care (n = 83,357) were combined with injury diagnoses for in- and outpatients in secondary care (n = 3,294,336). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of forearm fractures registered exclusively in primary care, and corresponding injury diagnoses for those registered in both primary and secondary care. RESULTS: Of 189,105 forearm fracture registrations in primary and secondary care, 13,948 (7.4%) were registered exclusively in primary care. The proportion ranged from 4.9% to 13.5% on average between counties, but was higher in some municipalities (>30%). Of 66,747 primary care forearm fractures registered with a diagnosis in secondary care, 62% were incident forearm fractures, 28% follow-up controls, and 10% other fractures or non-fracture injuries. CONCLUSION: An overall small proportion of forearm fractures were registered only in primary care, but it was larger in some areas of Norway. Failing to include fractures exclusively treated in primary care could underestimate the incidence rates in these areas.

Norwegian forearm fracture incidence based on secondary care may be underestimated by not including fractures treated exclusively in primary care.The mean proportion of forearm fractures exclusively handled in primary care is 7% and varies from 5% to 14% between counties.Fractures treated in primary care can be considered for more accurate national incidence rates. Correct fracture diagnosis needs further investigation.

Injury severity and increased socioeconomic differences: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have documented an inverse gradient between socioeconomic status (SES) and injury mortality, but the evidence is less consistent for injury morbidity. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between SES and injury severity for acute hospitalizations in a nationwide population-based cohort. METHODS: We conducted a registry-based cohort study of all individuals aged 25-64 years residing in Norway by 1st of January 2008. This cohort was followed from 2008 through 2014 using inpatient registrations for acute hospitalizations due to all-cause injuries. We derived two measures of severity: threat-to-life using the International Classification of Disease-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS), and threat of disability using long-term disability weights from the Injury-VIBES project. Robust Poisson regression models, with adjustment for age, sex, marital status, immigrant status, municipality population size and healthcare region of residence, were used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) by SES measured as an index of education, income, and occupation. RESULTS: We identified 177,663 individuals (7% of the population) hospitalized with at least one acute injury in the observation period. Two percent (n = 4,186) had injuries categorized with high threat-to-life, while one quarter (n = 43,530) had injuries with high threat of disability. The overall adjusted IRR of hospitalization among people with low compared to high SES was 1.57 (95% CI 1.55, 1.60). Comparing low to high SES, injuries with low threat-to-life were associated with an IRR of 1.56 (95% CI 1.54, 1.59), while injuries with high threat-to-life had an IRR of 2.25 (95% CI 2.03, 2.51). Comparing low to high SES, injuries with low, medium, and high threat of disability were associated with IRRs of respectively, 1.15 (95% CI 1.11, 1.19), 1.70 (95% CI 1.66, 1.73) and 1.99 (95% CI 1.92, 2.07). DISCUSSION: We observed an inverse gradient between SES and injury morbidity, with the steepest gradient for the most severe injuries. This suggests a need for targeted preventive measures to reduce the magnitude and burden of severe injuries for patients with low socioeconomic status.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of injuries during lockdown in Norway.

AIMS: In order to prevent a major outbreak of COVID-19 disease in Norway, a series of lockdown measures was announced on 12 March 2020. The aim of the present paper was to describe the impact of this lockdown on the treatment of injuries. METHODS: We collected hospital data on injury diagnoses from a national emergency preparedness register established during the pandemic. We identified the number of injured patients per day in the period 1 January-30 June 2020, and analysed the change in patient volumes over two three-week periods before and during the lockdown by sex, age, level of care, level of urgency, type of contact and type of injury. RESULTS: Compared to pre-lockdown levels, there was an overall reduction of 43% in injured patients during the first three weeks of lockdown. The decrease in patient contacts did not differ by sex, but was most pronounced among young people. Substantial reductions were observed for both acute and elective treatment and across all levels of care and types of contact, with the exception of indirect patient contacts. The change in patient contacts varied considerably by injury type, with the largest reduction observed for dislocations/sprains/strains. The decrease was much lower for burns/corrosions and poisoning. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial reduction in the treatment of injuries was observed during lockdown in Norway. Possible explanations for this finding include an overall decrease in injury risk, a redistribution of hospital resources and a higher threshold for seeking medical attention as a result of the pandemic.

Health care utilisation for treatment of injuries among immigrants in Norway: a nationwide register linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has generally found lower rates of injury incidence in immigrant populations than in native-born populations. Most of this literature relies on mortality statistics or hospital data, and we know less about injuries treated in primary health care. The aim of the present study was to assess use of primary and secondary care for treatment of injuries among immigrants in Norway according to geographic origin and type of injury. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide register-based cohort study of all individuals aged 25-64 years who resided in Norway as of January 1st 2008. This cohort was followed through 2014 by linking sociodemographic information and injury data from primary and secondary care. We grouped immigrants into six world regions of origin and identified immigrants from the ten most frequently represented countries of origin. Six categories of injury were defined: fractures, superficial injuries, open wounds, dislocations/sprains/strains, burns and poisoning. Poisson regression models were fitted to estimate incidence rate ratios separately for injuries treated in primary and secondary care according to immigrant status, geographic origin and type of injury, with adjustment for sex, age, county of residence, marital status and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Immigrants had a 16% lower incidence of injury in primary care than non-immigrants (adjusted IRR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.83-0.84), and a 10% lower incidence of injury in secondary care (adjusted IRR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.90-0.91). Immigrants from Asia, Africa and European countries outside EU/EEA had lower rates than non-immigrants for injuries treated in both primary and secondary care. Rates were lower in immigrants for most injury types, and in particular for fractures and poisoning. For a subset of injuries treated in secondary care, we found that immigrants had lower rates than non-immigrants for treatment of self-harm, falls, sports injuries and home injuries, but higher rates for treatment of assault, traffic injuries and occupational injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Health care utilisation for treatment of injuries in primary and secondary care in Norway was lower for immigrants compared to non-immigrants. Incidence rates were especially low for immigrants originating from Asia, Africa and European countries outside EU/EEA, and for treatment of fractures, poisoning, self-harm and sports injuries.

Incidence of injuries in Norway: linking primary and secondary care data.

Aims: Most studies of injury incidence underestimate the total burden of injury, as they do not include injuries treated in primary care. The aim of this study was to measure the total incidence of medically treated injuries in Norway. We further investigated the epidemiology of injuries treated in primary and secondary care. Methods: We collected individual-level data on injury diagnoses from the Norwegian Patient Registry and the national registry dataset for reimbursement of primary care providers for the period 2009-2014, and estimated the annual incidence of patients registered with an injury diagnosis in either or both of these registries. We also converted ICD-10 codes in secondary care into ICPC-2 codes to compare the types of injuries treated in primary and secondary care. Results: The annual incidence of medically treated injuries in Norway was 125 patients per 1000 inhabitants. Fifty-five per cent of injured patients received treatment exclusively in primary care. We observed stable time trends over the six-year period. Incidence rates were higher in primary care for the youngest children and in middle adulthood, but were higher in secondary care for older people. Overall, injury incidence was higher for men, but women became more injury prone with age. We only observed this gender reversal in secondary care. With the exception of fractures, all injury types were predominantly treated in primary care. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of injured patients in Norway are treated exclusively in primary care. The demographic profile of these patients differs from those treated in secondary care.