A systematic review of the association between fault or blame-related attributions and procedures after transport injury and health and work-related outcomes

Giummarra, Melita J.; Lau, Georgina; Grant, Genevieve; Gabbe, Belinda

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.105333

Cited by 23 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reviewer 1 obtained all full-text papers, and excluded 134 records based on the inclusion criteria defined in table 1 17. The remaining 555 papers were manually screened by reviewer 1, which took 39.18 hours.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionText mining to support screening in large-scale systematic reviews has been recommended; however, their suitability for reviews in injury research is not known. We examined the performance of text mining in supporting the second reviewer in a systematic review examining associations between fault attribution and health and work-related outcomes after transport injury.MethodsCitations were independently screened in Abstrackr in full (reviewer 1; 10 559 citations), and until no more citations were predicted to be relevant (reviewer 2; 1809 citations, 17.1%). All potentially relevant full-text articles were assessed by reviewer 1 (555 articles). Reviewer 2 used text mining (Wordstat, QDA Miner) to reduce assessment to full-text articles containing ≥1 fault-related exposure term (367 articles, 66.1%).ResultsAbstrackr offered excellent workload savings: 82.7% of citations did not require screening by reviewer 2, and total screening time was reduced by 36.6% compared with traditional dual screening of all citations. Abstrackr predictions had high specificity (83.7%), and low false negatives (0.3%), but overestimated citation relevance, probably due to the complexity of the review with multiple outcomes and high imbalance of relevant to irrelevant records, giving low sensitivity (29.7%) and precision (14.5%). Text mining of full-text articles reduced the number needing to be screened by 33.9%, and reduced total full-text screening time by 38.7% compared with traditional dual screening.ConclusionsOverall, text mining offered important benefits to systematic review workflow, but should not replace full screening by one reviewer, especially for complex reviews examining multiple health or injury outcomes.Trial registration numberCRD42018084123.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five databases were searched on 15 January 2018 (figure 2, online supplementary table 1–5). The review was registered to PROSPERO,16 and is summarised in detail in the paper reporting the systematic review findings 17. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarised in table 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under the TAC compensation scheme, injured people are entitled to healthcare required to support their recovery, and to income replacement for the first 18 months post-injury if their work capacity is impaired, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. These entitlements are a stark contrast with the limited or adversarial and stressful procedures involved in seeking compensation from other schemes, particularly insurers operating within fault-based schemes which lead to much worse health, pain, mental health and work outcomes [ 26 ]. With the TAC, people who sustain permanent impairment and were not at fault are entitled to a lump sum compensation payment through common law proceedings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless of the type of injury sustained, it is frequently found that pain and mental health outcomes are worse in people who claim or pursue compensation [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. A number of factors seem to be involved in the so-called “compensation health effect”.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While malingering or symptom exaggeration may be present in some claimants [ 27 ], it seems that adverse outcomes from compensable injury, and aspects of compensation-related processes, may exacerbate the impact of the injury on both pain and mental health outcomes [ 28 ]. In particular, disability, pain and mental health after compensable injury are associated with subjective experience of claim-related stress, particularly due to claim delays [ 29 , 30 ], undergoing independent medical examinations to determine the severity of functional impairment [ 31 ], as well as attributions of fault or consulting a lawyer [ 26 ]. Moreover, perceptions of injustice [ 32 ], having a sense of entitlement or embodiment of a “victim” role [ 33 ] may play a role.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prognostic Role of Demographic, Injury and Claim Factors in Disabling Pain and Mental Health Conditions 12 Months after Compensable Injury

Nguyen

Baker

Ioannou

et al. 2020

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying who might develop disabling pain or poor mental health after injury is a high priority so that healthcare providers can provide targeted preventive interventions. This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify predictors of disabling pain or probable mental health conditions at 12 months post-injury. Participants were recruited 12-months after admission to a major trauma service for a compensable transport or workplace injury (n = 157). Injury, compensation claim, health services and medication information were obtained from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcome Registry, Victorian State Trauma Registry and Compensation Research Database. Participants completed questionnaires about pain, and mental health (anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder) at 12 months post-injury. One third had disabling pain, one third had at least one probable mental health condition and more than one in five had both disabling pain and a mental health condition at 12 months post-injury. Multivariable logistic regression found mental health treatment 3–6 months post-injury, persistent work disability and opioid use at 6–12 months predicted disabling pain at 12 months post-injury. The presence of opioid use at 3–6 months, work disability and psychotropic medications at 6–12 months predicted a mental health condition at 12 months post-injury. These factors could be used to identify at risk of developing disabling pain who could benefit from timely interventions to better manage both pain and mental health post-injury. Implications for healthcare and compensation system are discussed.

show abstract

Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review

Blaizot

Veettil

Saidoung

et al. 2022

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exponential increase in published articles makes a thorough and expedient review of literature increasingly challenging. This review delineated automated tools and platforms that employ artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and evaluated the reported benefits and challenges in using such methods. A search was conducted in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, CDSR, and Epistemonikos) up to April 2021 for systematic reviews and other related reviews implementing AI methods. To be included, the review must use any form of AI method, including machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or any other applications used to enable the full or semi-autonomous performance of one or more stages in the development of evidence synthesis. Twelve reviews were included, using nine different tools to implement 15 different AI methods. Eleven methods were used in the screening stages of the review (73%). The rest were divided: two in data extraction (13%) and two in risk of bias assessment (13%). The ambiguous benefits of the data extractions, combined with the reported advantages from 10 reviews, indicating that AI platforms have taken hold with varying success in evidence synthesis. However, the results are qualified by the reliance on the self-reporting of the review authors. Extensive human validation still appears required at this stage in implementing AI methods, though further evaluation is required to define the overall contribution of such platforms in enhancing efficiency and quality in evidence synthesis.

show abstract

A systematic review of the association between fault or blame-related attributions and procedures after transport injury and health and work-related outcomes

Cited by 23 publications

References 82 publications

Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews

Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews

Prognostic Role of Demographic, Injury and Claim Factors in Disabling Pain and Mental Health Conditions 12 Months after Compensable Injury

Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About