跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.212.120.195) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/12/01 09:48
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳秉暉
研究生(外文):Ping-Hui Chen
論文名稱:從文獻回顧探究職業傷病監測系統的低報與選擇性偏誤
論文名稱(外文):Under-reporting and Selection Bias in Occupational Injury and Illness Surveillance System, A Literature review
指導教授:陳保中陳保中引用關係
口試委員:蘇大成鄭雅文莊弘毅鄒子廉
口試日期:2019-01-15
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:職業醫學與工業衛生研究所
學門:醫藥衛生學門
學類:公共衛生學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:英文
論文頁數:29
中文關鍵詞:職業傷病監測通報
DOI:10.6342/NTU201900609
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:105
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
中文摘要
研究背景:職業傷病的低報與伴隨而來的選擇性偏誤,始終是一個艱難的挑戰,許多國家都因此使用各種通報機制從不同資料來源取得可信的資料。雖然過去的研究曾經討論個別通報機制的運作、通報機制的分類或職業傷病的低報來源,但沒有已知的研究曾經系統性地討論不同種類通報機制中職業傷病的低報來源,以及這些通報機制如何交互作用並共同建構一個理想的職業傷病監測系統。
研究方法:包含臺灣、日本、韓國、新加坡、澳洲、美國、英國、德國和法國的九個國家被選為研究對象,根據可搜尋到的網路資料,我們將這幾個國家運作中的通報機制辨識出來,之後將這些通報機制進行分類,並根據Webb所提出的濾篩模型(Filter model),將這些通報機制拆解為五種濾篩,後續的討論就著重在這五種濾篩如何在各種通報機制中導致職業傷病的低報與選擇性偏誤,以及這九個國家如何克服這些濾篩。
結果與討論:我們辨識出17個通報機制,包含7個補償為基礎的通報機制、6個職業安全法為基礎的通報機制與4個醫療行為為基礎的通報機制,且超過半數的國家,9個國家中有6個,有超過兩種以上的通報機制。
在各種通報機制中,這五種濾篩有不同的濾篩效果,且各國都有許多可以解決低報的有效手段,並有職業傷病統計資料跨國或跨年的比較可以驗證其效果。尤其那些職業傷病發生率較高、可合理解釋為較少低報問題的歐洲國家,他們克服低報問題並得到精確統計資料的方法,無疑十分值得學習,特別是對於職業傷病發生率最低的亞洲國家來說。
結論:共有三種通報機制,包含補償為基礎、職業安全法為基礎和醫療行為為基礎的通報制度,且各種機制都有其自身的濾篩,與因能涵蓋不同職業傷病而在職業傷病監測系統中不可取代的腳色。對於主管機關來說,要建構一個理想的職業傷病監測系統,建置其他運作良好的補充性通報機制,和克服個別通報機制的濾篩同等重要;而對於研究者來說,在使用通報機制的統計資料前,須熟悉此通報機制能涵蓋的職業傷病類型,且若要取得一個較完整的職業傷病圖像,彙整不只一個通報機制的統計資料很可能是必要的。
Introduction: Under-reporting of occupational injury and illness(OII) and accompanied selection bias have always been a difficult challenge, and each country has come up with various reporting mechanisms to obtain reliable data from different sources. Although operation of individual reporting mechanism, categorization of reporting mechanisms and sources of under-reporting have been discussed by previous studies, no searchable study has systematically discussed sources of under-reporting in different types of reporting mechanisms and how these reporting mechanisms interact and all together construct an ideal OII surveillance system.
Methods: Nine countries, including Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia, the United States(US), the United Kingdom(UK), Germany, and France, were chosen as study targets. Based on searchable online information, we identified all active reporting mechanisms among these countries. We then carried out categorization of reporting mechanism and broke it down into five types of filters, according to modified filter model of Webb et al. Discussion is then focused on how these five types of filters lead to under-reporting and accompanied selection bias in each type of reporting mechanism and how these nine countries overcome them.
Results: 17 reporting mechanisms, including 7 compensation-based reporting mechanisms (CBRM), 6 OSH-Act-based reporting mechanism (OBRM), and 4 medical-practice-based reporting mechanisms (MBRM), are identified, and over half countries, six of nine, have more than two types of reporting mechanism.
Five types of filters have different filtering effects in each type of reporting mechanism, and there are many effective practices to overcome under-reporting, supported by temporal or international comparison of yearly statistics on OII. While European countries have much higher incidence rate of OII, which is more reasonably explained by less under-reporting, how do they get accurate statistics and overcome under-reporting is worth learning, especially for Eastern Asian countries with lowest incidence.
Conclusions: There are three types of reporting mechanism, CBRM, OBRM, and MBRM, and each has its own filters and irreplaceable role in OII surveillance system due to different coverage of OII. For authorities concerned, to construct an ideal surveillance system, establishing other well-functioned complementary reporting mechanisms is as important as enhancing permeability of each reporting mechanism’s filters. For researchers, it is important to get familiar with OII coverage of certain reporting mechanism before utilization of its reported statistics, and pooling data from more than one reporting mechanisms may be necessary for a more comprehensive picture.
誌謝 i
中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Methods 2
2.1 Study targets and Literature review 2
2.2 Filter model to under-reporting of reporting mechanism 2
2.3 Filters in each type of reporting mechanism 3
Chapter 3 Results and Discussion 4
3.1 Identified reporting mechanisms and yearly statistics 4
3.2 Compensation-based reporting mechanism(CBRM) 4
3.3 OSH-Act-based reporting mechanism(OBRM) 11
3.4 Medical-practice-based reporting mechanism(MBRM) 13
3.5 Design of two-way reporting 16
3.6 Limitations 17
Chapter 4 Conclusions 18
Chapter 5 Tables and Figures 19
REFERENCE 27
1. EUROGIP. Reporting of Occupational Diseases Issues and Good Practices in Five European Countries. Eurogip 2015;102/E
2. Carder M, Bensefa-Colas L, Mattioli S, et al. A review of occupational disease surveillance systems in Modernet countries. Occup Med (Lond) 2015;65(8):615-25. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv081 [published Online First: 2015/10/09]
3. Bonneterre V, Faisandier L, Bicout D, et al. Programmed health surveillance and detection of emerging diseases in occupational health: contribution of the French national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network (RNV3P). Occup Environ Med 2010;67(3):178-86. doi: 10.1136/oem.2008.044610
4. Carder M, Hussey L, Money A, et al. The Health and Occupation Research Network: An Evolving Surveillance System. Saf Health Work 2017;8(3):231-36. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2016.12.003
5. Chu PC, Fuh HR, Luo JC, et al. The impact of occupational health service network and reporting system in Taiwan. Int J Occup Environ Health 2013;19(4):352-62. doi: 10.1179/2049396713Y.0000000043
6. Siang LH, Tan A. Singapore’s Framework for Reporting Occupational Accidents, Injuries and Diseases. Asian-Pacific newslett on Occup Health and Safety 2010;17:28-31.
7. Kim EA, Kang S-K. Reporting System for Occupational Injuries and Illness in Korea. Asian-Pacific newslett on Occup Health and Safety 2010;17:32-34.
8. Rhee KY, Choe SW. Management system of occupational diseases in Korea: statistics, report and monitoring system. J Korean Med Sci 2010;25(Suppl):S119-26. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2010.25.S.S119
9. Bakusic J, Lenderink A, Lambreghts C, et al. Methodologies to identify work-related diseases Review of sentinel and alert approaches. In: (EU-OSHA) EAfSaHaW, ed., 2017.
10. Webb GR, Redman S, Wilkinson C, et al. Filtering effects in reporting work injuries. Accident Analysis & Prevention 1989;21(2):115-23. [published Online First: 1989/04/01]
11. Miller G. Hidden Tragedy: Underreporting of Workplace Injuries and Illness. In: The Committee on Education and Labor USHoR, ed., 2008.
12. Azaroff LS, Levenstein C, Wegman DH. Occupational Injury and Illness Surveillance Conceptual Filters Explain Underreporting. American Journal of Public Health 2002;92(9):1421-29. [published Online First: 2002/08/29]
13. Murphy PL, Sorock GS, Courtney TK, et al. Injury and illness in the American workplace: a comparison of data sources. American journal of industrial medicine 1996;30(2):130-41. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199608)30:2<130::Aid-ajim3>3.0.Co;2-4 [published Online First: 1996/08/01]
14. Hamideh Z. The Under-reporting of Injuries for Hispanic Workers in Construction. The University of Utah, 2013.
15. Stuckey R, Lamontagne AD. Occupational light-vehicle use and OHS legislative frameworks: an Australian example. Int J Occup Environ Health 2005;11(2):167-79. doi: 10.1179/oeh.2005.11.2.167 [published Online First: 2005/05/07]
16. Webb GR. A filter model to describe bias in official statistics on alcohol-related injuries. Accident; analysis and prevention 1995;27(5):687-97. [published Online First: 1995/10/01]
17. Rehm J. Methodological approaches and problems in research into alcohol-related accidents and injuries. Addiction (Abingdon, England) 1993;88(7):885-96. [published Online First: 1993/07/01]
18. Mahmood NHN, Hamzah NF. Factors influencing sharp injury reporting among healthcare workers in Hospital Melaka. Journal of Advanced Research Design 2017;34(1):8-18.
19. Robson LS, Shannon HS, Goldenhar LM, et al. Guide to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries. In: Health NIfOSa, ed., 2001.
20. Moller J, Scott I. Guide to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries: How to show whether an intervention really works. Injury Prevention 2003;9(4):382-83. doi: 10.1136/ip.9.4.382-a
21. Kwon SC, Kim HR, Kwon YJ. The administrative process for recognition and compensation for occupational diseases in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29 Suppl:S3-11. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2014.29.S.S3
22. DGUV. DGUV Statistics 2016, 2017.
23. National Data Set for Compensation-based Statistics In: Commission NOHaS, ed., 2004.
24. Technical Manual for the National Data Set Compensation-Based Statistics. In: Commission ASaC, ed., 2008.
25. Kim JG, Duk YJ. Development and Operation of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Scheme in S. Korea. In: Workers’ Compensation Research Center KWCWSC, ed., 2012.
26. Markowitz S. Occupational disease surveillance and reporting systems. In: Stellman JM, ed. Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety: International Labour Organization (ILO), 1998.
27. Comparison of workers’ compensation arrangements in Australia and New Zealand (2018). In: Australia SW, ed., 2018.
28. Your social security rights in France. In: Commission E, ed., 2013.
29. Your social security rights in Germany. In: Commission E, ed., 2011.
30. EUROGIP. Accidents at work and occupational diseases: flat rate or full reparation? European survey on the conditions of compensation for the victims. Eurogip 2005;21/E
31. Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Application Guidance for Foreign Workers. In: Compensation Division LSB, Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, ed., 2018.
32. Welch L. The role of occupational health clinics in surveillance of occupational disease. American Journal of Public Health 1989;79 Suppl:58-60. [published Online First: 1989/12/01]
33. Improving Workplace Health Management in Singapore. In: Council WSaH, ed., 2018.
34. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illness. In: Statistics BoL, ed., 2017.
35. Waclawski E. Disease reporting after the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations (1995) (RIDDOR) is revised. Occup Med (Lond) 2013;63(3):168-9. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqs220
36. EUROSTAT. European Statistics on Accidents at Work(ESAW): Summary methodology. In: Commission E, ed., 2013.
37. EUROSTAT. European Statistics on Accidents at Work(ESAW): Metadata. In: Commission E, ed., 2016.
38. Ehnes H. Improvement of national reporting, data collection and analysis of occupational accidents and diseases. In: International Labour Organization G, ed., 2012.
39. Choy K, Tan A, Soon LC, et al. Reporting of Occupational Diseases in Singapore. The Singapore Family Physician 2011;37(25-30)
40. Choy K, Far HS. Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines Diagnosis and Management of Occupational Diseases. In: Council WSaH, ed., 2011.
41. Curti S, Sauni R, Spreeuwers D, et al. Interventions to increase the reporting of occupational diseases by physicians: a Cochrane systematic review. Occup Environ Med 2016;73(5):353-4. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2015-103209
42. Smits PB, de Boer AG, Kuijer PP, et al. The effectiveness of an educational programme on occupational disease reporting. Occup Med (Lond) 2008;58(5):373-5. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqn061
43. Koh D, Chia K-S. Surveillance in developing countries. In: Stellman JM, ed. Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety: International Labour Organization (ILO), 1998.
44. Money A, Carder M, Hussey L, et al. The utility of information collected by occupational disease surveillance systems. Occup Med (Lond) 2015;65(8):626-31. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv138
45. Hussey L. THOR-GP input to HSE Annual Statistics 2015/2016 - Note on methods used for calculating incidence rates and ‘caveats’ in interpretation. In: Centre for Occupational & Environmental Health (COEH) T, Manchester Uo, eds., 2016.
46. Delaunay M, Godard V, Le Barbier M, et al. Geographic dimensions of a health network dedicated to occupational and work related diseases. Int J Health Geogr 2016;15(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12942-016-0063-7 [published Online First: 2016/09/30]
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top