↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: a comparative study
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3331-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nieke A. Elbers, Alex Collie, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Katherine Lippel, Keri Lockwood, Ian D. Cameron

Abstract

Involvement 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. One 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. In Victoria, 84 % of the participants considered the claims process fair, compared to 46 % of NSW participants (χ(2) = 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). The 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 14 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#13,763,047
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,780
of 15,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,210
of 367,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#234
of 355 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 355 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.