The association between attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle accidents and patient satisfaction: a study within a no-fault injury compensation system

Thompson, Jason; Berk, Michael; O’Donnell, Meaghan; Nordfjærn, Trond

doi:10.1177/0269215514546009

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, in NSW in 100 % of cases, someone else, aside from the participant was at least partially at-fault, whereas in Victoria 18 % of participants indicated that they were at-fault. A subgroup analysis of the Victorian sample showed that those who were at-fault considered the process to be fairer than those who were not at all/partially at fault (t (76) = − 3.0, p = .004; not reported in the result section), which is in line with a previous study [ 27 ]. Those who perceive themselves to have been at fault for their own injury could perceive the process to be fairer, being grateful to receive compensation despite the fact that they were at fault.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: a comparative study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInvolvement in a compensation process following a motor vehicle collision is consistently associated with worse health status but the reasons underlying this are unclear. Some compensation systems are hypothesised to be more stressful than others. In particular, fault-based compensation systems are considered to be more adversarial than no-fault systems and associated with poorer recovery. This study compares the perceived fairness and recovery of claimants in the fault-based compensation system in New South Wales (NSW) to the no-fault system in Victoria, Australia.MethodsOne hundred eighty two participants were recruited via claims databases of the compensation system regulators in Victoria and NSW. Participants were > 18 years old and involved in a transport injury compensation process. The crash occurred 12 months (n = 95) or 24 months ago (n = 87). Perceived fairness about the compensation process was measured by items derived from a validated organisational justice questionnaire. Health outcome was measured by the initial question of the Short Form Health Survey.ResultsIn Victoria, 84 % of the participants considered the claims process fair, compared to 46 % of NSW participants (χ2 = 28.54; p < .001). Lawyer involvement and medical assessments were significantly associated with poorer perceived fairness. Overall perceived fairness was positively associated with health outcome after adjusting for demographic and injury variables (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 2.8, 95 % CI = 1.4 – 5.7, p = .004).ConclusionThe study shows large differences in perceived fairness between two different compensation systems and an association between fairness and health. These findings are politically important because compensation processes are designed to improve recovery. Lower perceived fairness in NSW may have been caused by potential adversarial aspects of the scheme, such as liability assessment, medical assessments, dealing with a third party for-profit insurance agency, or financial insecurity due to lump sum payments at settlement. This study should encourage an evidence informed discussion about how to reduce anti-therapeutic aspects in the compensation process in order to improve the injured person’s health.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: a comparative study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Attributing fault to someone, or something (e.g., an animal or environmental feature), other than oneself is frequently associated with poorer coping with illness [13], and worse health and work outcomes following injury [14, 15]. While external locus of causality may impact directly on coping with injury and illness, a range of other individual and contextual factors are likely to contribute to injustice experiences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traumatic injury and perceived injustice: Fault attributions matter in a “no-fault” compensation state

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTraumatic injury can lead to loss, suffering and feelings of injustice. Previous research has shown that perceived injustice is associated with poorer physical and mental wellbeing in persons with chronic pain. This study aimed to identify the relative association between injury, compensation and pain-related characteristics and perceived injustice 12-months after traumatic injury.Methods433 participants were recruited from the Victorian Orthopedic Trauma Outcomes Registry and Victorian State Trauma Registry, and completed questionnaires at 12–14 months after injury as part of an observational cohort study. Using hierarchical linear regression we examined the relationships between baseline demographics (sex, age, education, comorbidities), injury (injury severity, hospital length of stay), compensation (compensation status, fault, lawyer involvement), and health outcomes (SF-12) and perceived injustice. We then examined how much additional variance in perceived injustice was related to worse pain severity, interference, self-efficacy, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia or disability.ResultsOnly a small portion of variance in perceived injustice was related to baseline demographics (especially education level), and injury severity. Attribution of fault to another, consulting a lawyer, health-related quality of life, disability and the severity of pain-related cognitions explained the majority of variance in perceived injustice. While univariate analyses showed that compensable injury led to higher perceptions of injustice, this did not remain significant when adjusting for all other factors, including fault attribution and consulting a lawyer.ConclusionsIn addition to the “justice” aspects of traumatic injury, the health impacts of injury, emotional distress related to pain (catastrophizing), and the perceived impact of pain on activity (pain self-efficacy), had stronger associations with perceptions of injustice than either injury or pain severity. To attenuate the likelihood of poor recovery from injury, clinical interventions that support restoration of health-related quality of life, and adjustment to the impacts of trauma are needed.

show abstract

“…65 Recent evidence has also highlighted the contribution of the perception of fault in accident circumstances to claimant outcomes and satisfaction. 66 In light of this, and the diff erent types of benefi ts available to claimants injured in atfault and not-at-fault circumstances, the way fault and blame for the occurrence of injury contribute to claimant experiences in claims processes should also be investigated.…”

Section: A Diversity In Claimant Experiences Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Claiming Justice in Injury Law

Grant

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The association between attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle accidents and patient satisfaction: a study within a no-fault injury compensation system

Cited by 13 publications

References 42 publications

Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: a comparative study

Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: a comparative study

Traumatic injury and perceived injustice: Fault attributions matter in a “no-fault” compensation state

Claiming Justice in Injury Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About