Reasearch paper due 16 Oct 13 @ 1700

doi: 10.1136/ip.7.suppl_1.i3 2001 7: i3-i10Inj Prev

G S Smith injury prevention: do they work? Public health approaches to occupational

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/suppl_1/i3.full.html Updated information and services can be found at:

These include:

References

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/suppl_1/i3.full.html#related-urls Article cited in:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/suppl_1/i3.full.html#ref-list-1 This article cites 46 articles, 21 of which can be accessed free at:

service Email alerting

box at the top right corner of the online article. Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the

Notes

http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To request permissions go to:

http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To order reprints go to:

http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/ To subscribe to BMJ go to:

group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from

Public health approaches to occupational injury prevention: do they work?

G S Smith

Occupational injuries represent a considerable part of the injury burden to society, aVecting people in the most productive years of their lives. Globally, almost 1000 workers are killed by injuries every day, and about six of every 1000 workers will be fatally injured at work during a 40 year work life span.1 Non-fatal injuries are an even more pervasive problem. In the United States alone, recent studies estimate that almost 16 000 workers daily are hurt on the job, approximately six million occupational injury cases annually.2 The field of public health has made significant contributions to worker safety in the United States in the past century. In fact, one review3 concluded that two of the top 10 leading public health achieve- ments were the decline of workplace injury fatalities from 37 to four fatalities per 100 000 workers between 1933 and 1997,4 and the reduction in motor vehicle fatalities (many of which are work related) from 18 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 1925 to 1.7 in 1997.5 While the above achievements demon- strate considerable progress, the wide varia- tions in reported occupational injury fatality rates between industrialized countries and even within industries in the same country1 2 suggest that much more can be done.

This special issue of Injury Prevention, and the recent National Occupational Injury Re- search Symposium (NOIRS) from which it derives, represent milestones in the public health approach to occupational injury re- search and to occupational injury control. The articles contained herein and my discussion in this commentary, demonstrate the new focus on the comprehensive, multidisciplinary meth- ods of reducing work injuries that we believe will define the field of occupational public health in the new millennium.

Milestones The occupational injury focus of this special issue is significant for several reasons. First, it is gratifying to see occupational injury research being published in Injury Prevention. This broadened focus by the journal was initiated earlier this year with a commentary and several articles on work related injuries and the conse- quences of work exposures.6–9 All too often studies of occupational injuries have been con- sidered separate from other injury problems, relegated largely to occupational health and safety publications. The fragmentation of inju- ries into artificial categories such as “inten- tional”, “unintentional”, and “occupational” has resulted in an ineYcient and sometimes unequal use of the limited resources available to combat the causes and the consequences of this important aspect of health care. This

problem is compounded by the fact that in many countries there are separate organiza- tional entities for workplace injury control pro- grams and those devoted to general community injury control. For example, while the United States National Center for Injury Prevention and Control considers itself to be the federal focus for injury prevention, their mandate includes everything except injuries occurring in the workplace.10 Similarly, an analysis of the content of the World Health Organization (WHO) Violence and Injury Control Program web site found not a single mention of occupa- tional injuries.11 The subdivision of work and non-work injuries is becoming increasingly artificial and ignores the reality that there is often little diVerence between the mechanisms of injuries occurring on and oV the job. Both work and non-work injuries can and should be subject to the public health approach outlined in the article by Nancy Stout found in this issue.12

This supplement also celebrates another milestone—namely, the second NOIRS confer- ence that brought together the occupational health and injury prevention communities.13

Participants at this and the earlier meeting in 199714 included representatives from many dif- ferent backgrounds, and camaraderie has rapidly developed across disciplines and even nations. Many new friendships and collabora- tions were fostered. An important realization from these meetings was the breadth of occupational injury research being conducted, ranging from laboratory studies of working at elevation, to an evaluation of school based education to improve farm safety in teenagers. Another insight gained from the NOIRS meet- ings was the great learning opportunities aVorded not just across disciplines but also across nationalities. Many occupational injury problems are similar between countries, yet diVerences in some injury rates suggest there is much we can learn from each other. Towards this end, NOIRS has become an international conference, drawing participants from at least 14 diVerent countries. We have tried to reflect the diversity of interests and disciplines in this issue.

Public health approach to injury prevention Beginning in the early 1950s, public health has emphasized a broader approach to injury con- trol, moving beyond educational methods to “accident prevention”.15 The public health approach views prevention from the standpoint of population based risk. It identifies and targets workers in high risk occupations, those underserved by traditional occupational safety

Injury Prevention 2001;7(Suppl I):i3–10 i3

The Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland

Correspondence and reprint requests to: Gordon S Smith, The Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy, 624 N Broadway, Room 545, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA [email protected]

www.injuryprevention.com

group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from group.bmj.com on September 23, 2013 - Published by injuryprevention.bmj.comDownloaded from

programs, and areas where wide gaps exist in injury rates and hazards in those doing similar tasks. At the end of the 1990s the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) of- fered a broad strategy for traumatic occupa- tional injury research based on the public health model.16 The subsequent sections of this commentary discuss how NORA and the arti- cles in this issue fit into the traditional public health approaches to prevention, namely: x Surveillance—problem identification and

prioritization. x Risk factor identification—analytic injury

research. x Intervention development and evaluation—

identification/development of prevention/ control strategies.

x Implementation—methods to put into prac- tice and evaluate prevention and control programs.

Surveillance IMPROVING DATA SYSTEMS

Key to the public health approach to injury prevention is the development of good data systems needed to identify problem areas, prioritize the issues, and evaluate the eVective- ness of prevention strategies. The earliest con- tinuously reported data for the United States are from the National Safety Council, who began regular reporting of estimated numbers and rates of work related fatalities nationwide in 1933.17 However, the great variability in occupational fatality data resulted in little understanding of the true magnitude of the nation’s occupational injury burden. For exam- ple, in 1990 oYcial estimates of work related fatal injury ranged from 2900 to 10 100.17 18

Data systems improved dramatically in the early 1990s, starting with the National Trau- matic Occupational Fatality (NTOF) system built on uncoded death certificate information from 1980.19 20 Subsequently, the more com- prehensive Census of Fatal Occupational Inju- ries (CFOI) was developed that provided extensive case level data on all workplace fatalities beginning with 1992 data.19 The eVect of moving to individual case based counting from estimating procedures based on ICD codes resulted in National Safety Council esti- mates falling from 9800 fatalities in 1991 to 4968 in 1992 (6026 in 1998), the year they started using CFOI.17 The improved data from NTOF and CFOI have lead to many changes in public attitudes and policy such as the atten- tion given to workplace violence prevention in the United States.21 22 Occupational homicides have declined 34% from 1994 to 1998,23 com- pared to only a 25% decline in community homicide rates.24 Similar advances in improv- ing and using workplace fatality data have been made in other countries.7 Several papers in this issue demonstrate the next generation in occu- pational injury surveillance technology that should result in even greater accuracy and spe- cificity of work related morbidity and mor- tality.25 26

IMPROVING THE USE OF DATA THROUGH FREE

TEXT ANALYSIS

It is important to make full use of all available data. One area of information mining that is gaining increasing attention is the use of free text data.20 26–29 The available text data on death certificates in the United States, although lim- ited, can provide invaluable information on injury circumstances and location by allowing searches for specific words.20 30 In other coun- tries, such as New Zealand, free text has been entered on the vital statistics file for many years and has proven an invaluable source of data for injury research.31 The addition of free text data to any injury database can greatly improve the value of the original data source as a case find- ing tool.

Williamson et al takes free text analysis beyond its use as a case finding tool and explores how text information can be computer coded to overcome incompatibility in injury mechanism coding between countries.26 One of the major limitations of doing international comparisons of work related injuries is compa- rability of data coding and definitions.7 The free text data available in the records from Australia, New Zealand and the United States, however, allowed computer coding of cause of injury information across national classifi- cation systems, making comparison of occupa- tional injury statistics feasible. While William- son’s paper demonstrates the feasibility of coding by computer, the diYculty of achieving exact coding of complex cases using free text data makes it doubtful that machine coding could completely replace manual coding. Despite these caveats, if specificity was set high such that few cases were incorrectly coded and the remaining cases were hand coded, we believe that the savings from machine coding in terms of cost and manpower would be substantial and may even result in more consistent coding.

An important barrier to more widespread use of free text data is the lack of standardiza- tion regarding how information is recorded. Some descriptions may be very informative while others may be very limited. Interactive computer prompts with branching questions provide an opportunity to record more detailed and systematic information on injury causes, such as is being used in the new United States National Health Interview Survey.32 These prompts also allow a more structured approach to the collection of free text and the potential to incorporate software to recognize certain words that prompt for more detail. The benefits of this approach will include decreased abstraction time and improved machine coding of narrative text. Other new developments in free text mining include advanced software that uses multiple word combinations and recog- nizes the context in which a word is used. Such software has already been used by national security agencies and has been adapted for the analysis of aviation mishaps (Dodd R, personal communication, 1 June 2001).

i4 Smith

www.injuryprevention.com

IDENTIFICATION OF WORK RELATEDNESS

The complete and accurate estimation of non- fatal occupational injuries is frequently ham- pered by the limitations of currently available surveillance systems, which separate data for work related injuries from information about all injuries in the population. Neither system is complete because the latter seldom includes indications of work relatedness and the former often excludes certain sectors of the workforce and/or suVers from underreporting of occupa- tional injuries.33 34 For example, the proportion of injury hospitalizations related to work is unknown in the United States (and most countries) because external cause codes do not separately identify “injuries at work”. Workers’ compensation as the expected source of payment on hospital discharge data may be useful to identify some, but not all “at work” injuries.35 Just as “cause of injury” coding is now mandated on many statewide hospital databases, so should “injury at work: yes/no” be a required field included on all hospital discharge and other databases containing injury data.

The identification of non-hospitalized occu- pational injuries has improved considerably in recent years, as demonstrated by Jackson’s paper which discusses eVorts to improve the detection of occupational injuries presenting to emergency departments through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS).25 Originally developed to track only injuries related to consumer products, NEISS was first used to gather information on selected occupational injuries in 1981, and since 1996 they have collected data on all occupational injuries. NEISS has recently expanded to include all injuries (work and non-work) in two thirds of the sample hospitals, but because of limited resources specific E codes are not assigned.36 Most National Center for Health Statistics surveys also now include details on injury causes and work relatedness.25 32 37

Emergency department data are important but may not be representative of all medically treated injuries. Attendance may vary by injury severity, insurance status, local referral prac- tices (especially after hours) and the existence of other clinics, particularly those in the work- place.38 NEISS and other record based surveys also rely on the accurate reporting of work relatedness in the original medical record. The addition of specific questions on “injury at work” in the recent redesign of the National Health Interview Survey is a major advance in achieving a more complete population based estimate of all non-fatal occupational injuries.32

The development of integrated company-wide surveillance activities such as that imple- mented by Ford Motor Company,29 by the Army,39 or through linkage of insurance claims with outcome data,40 represents the future of improved surveillance and provides invaluable information to develop, and evaluate preven- tion programs. An important aspect of these systems is the ability to link data from diVerent sources for more in-depth studies.

USE OF CASE BASED SURVEILLANCE

INVESTIGATIONS FOR PREVENTION

Not all injury problems require detailed popu- lation based surveillance data or etiological studies of risk factors to develop prevention programs. Often a single, well done case inves- tigation (an important component of tra- ditional safety investigations) can lead to important prevention strategies. The Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Program described by Higgins et al is an exam- ple of a systematic public health approach to case investigations.41 FACE uses the classic model of agent, host, and environment to examine factors that present during the pre- event, event, and post-event phases of injury occurrence.42 Preventive action was taken based on a single case investigation of an elec- trocution from a faulty water pump in a public swimming pool. It is gratifying to see that 73% of respondents who received the initial hazard alert had their pools inspected, especially since 37% of those reported finding electrical problems. The more lasting eVects of this work, however, was its translation into state legisla- tion mandating regular inspection and certifi- cation of electrical equipment in public pools.

The identification of a newly emerging hazard created by the construction of cell phone towers is another example of the value of case investigations, and how they can inform prevention practitioners at other agencies.41

Case reports from FACE are available on the internet and encompass both topic and state specific investigations, allowing for early identi- fication of new occupational injury risks by making all the isolated reports accessible in a single location. For example, a review of FACE investigations from Minnesota covers reports ranging from attacks by a bull, or being engulfed by corn in a grain bin, to being struck by a falling 400lb zoo cage.43 The widespread dissemination of study findings and prevention recommendations from FACE has been an important component of its success.

The report of serious burns from portable oxygen systems (see in issue) also provides very compelling evidence for the utility of specific cause investigations for identifying and rectify- ing specific hazards, namely the fire risk when portable oxygen cylinders are tested.44 The strength of this study is that it also proposed practical solutions to observed hazards, such as using brass regulators rather than those made from the more combustible aluminum. The study also illustrates the way such investiga- tions can inform the standards setting process, in this case the development of a national standard and testing system for oxygen regula- tors.

Risk factor identification A wide variety of factors contribute to workplace injury risk, including hazardous environmental conditions, individual worker characteristics, economic issues, social, and other workplace organizational factors.16 45 46

Well designed scientific studies are needed to identify, quantify, and prioritize modifiable risk

Public health approaches to occupational injury prevention i5

www.injuryprevention.com

factors that can be used to develop occupa- tional injury prevention strategies. The multi- factorial nature of occupational injuries neces- sitates research incorporating the skills and methods from a variety of disciplines. This is the reason that, perhaps more than any other field, injury science as a whole is multidiscipli- nary, embodying diverse fields such as epide- miology, biomechanics, physics, ergonomics, mechanical engineering, law, and the political, behavioral and medical sciences.15 47 The field of occupational injury science is no diVerent. The articles in this issue represent some of the methodological skills needed to find solutions to the dangers encountered in the workplace.

EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDY DESIGNS: CASE- CROSSOVER STUDIES

Many epidemiological study designs have been used to study occupational injuries including hybrid study designs, which can include using alternative control groups such as examining characteristics of sites with and without injuries.48–50 The case-crossover paper by So- rock et al (see this issue) describes one area where new epidemiological methods are being developed to study injuries at work.51 This paper represents the collective wisdom of participants in a workshop on this topic at NOIRS. The case-crossover method is a novel approach to overcoming some of the problems in conducting case-control studies in the work- place. This innovative method addresses the question “what is diVerent about the time period just before a person had their injury compared to other times when the person was not injured on the job?”. Subjects are both cases and controls: they are controls when they are not injured; becoming cases at the time the injury occurs. The approach is attractive for a number of reasons, particularly as it obviates the expense and difficulty involved in selecting and interviewing control subjects. Even more important, this design eliminates between sub- jects confounding as a source of bias. Some aspects of the case-crossover methodology however need further investigation, especially the impact of diVerential recall of factors at the time of the injury compared to other times. Additionally, risk estimates derived from case- crossover studies may vary from those derived from traditional case-control designs, as the designs often answer slightly diVerent ques- tions.51

EXPERIMENTAL LABORATORY STUDIES

Experimental laboratory studies often provide important information to guide the develop- ment of intervention strategies. The study on balance control by Simeonov is an example of issues that are diYcult to study at the worksite due to ethical or practical concerns but can be done safely in the laboratory setting, without loss of generalizability to the actual work- place.52 Ergonomic and biomechanical studies utilizing new investigative methods to simulate the circumstances of injury, such as the studies presented at the special sessions at NOIRS related to slips, trips and falls, and on the use of

virtual reality to simulate hazardous environ- ments,13 can provide valuable insights into injury etiology and prevention of injuries. While Simeonov et al’s study does not directly prove that increasing the presence of solid visual reference points for example will reduce the risk of falls, this research and others like it can provide the evidence needed to implement eVective prevention programs, especially since randomized controlled trials of injury preven- tion interventions (often considered the gold standard),49 are diYcult if not impossible to conduct under such situations.

Intervention development and evaluation Strategies to prevent workplace injuries vary widely and include engineering controls, pro- tective equipment, education/training, and regulatory and management practices (includ- ing those that encourage safe behavior and practices). We have come a long way from rely- ing on safety posters and brochures to educate workers, as illustrated by the spectrum of interventions discussed in this issue. However, as noted in the special feature by Barry Pless,53

the relative paucity of studies evaluating inter- ventions, both in the literature and at NOIRS, is a reflection in part of the relative “newness” of the field compared to many other areas. The design and implementation of interventions should be based upon a solid understanding of eVective prevention methods. However, in many areas this is not the case. To address this issue, good etiological research, both epide- miological and experimental, is needed to identify and addresses modifiable risk factors. Without good science to back up interventions, prevention eVorts may fail or even do harm. Many workplace interventions are being pro- moted (including training programs)54 that have not been scientifically evaluated, or, as in the recent case of back belts, are ineVective.55

DESIGN OF ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS

Redesign of the job or engineering solutions to make it safer are still two of the most eVective prevention strategies available. The paper by Powers et al on the performance of the automated rollover protective structure (Auto- ROPS) is an example of an eVective engineer- ing solution to reduce tractor injuries, and is a fitting tribute to the memory of the late Dr Karl Snyder who championed this work at NI- OSH.56 One of the major diYculties in implementing ROPS has been the use of permanent structures in low clearance areas such as barns and fruit orchards. The practical solution outlined in this paper goes a long way to overcome these barriers.

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Many hazards in the workplace are diYcult to completely eliminate. However, much can be done to reduce risk such as the use of protective clothing or by improving chances of survival once injured. The study by Prezant et al is an excellent example of how improved protective clothing can provide a major reduc- tion in burn injury risk to firefighters.57 Burns

i6 Smith

www.injuryprevention.com

to the head from serious fires were reduced by 46%, and burns to the upper extremities by 86%. The second part of the study is also interesting in that it demonstrates that a more comfortable uniform under the improved outer layer does not reduce its protection eVective- ness.

EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS

Farming is a particularly hazardous occupation and represents a group of workers diYcult to reach by traditional safety programs or legisla- tion. The study by Reed et al is a good example of an educationally based intervention to reduce injuries to children and teens on farms.58 The study is well grounded in modern behavioral change theory, and while not exam- ining a direct eVect on reducing injuries; significant improvements were made in safety attitudes and readiness to change. The real test in educational evaluations is to demonstrate the relationship of attitude change to reduc- tions in injury rates. Such studies are however diYcult to conduct and often very expensive.59

Long term follow up of farming injury incidence rates within this population are war- ranted.

Other issues in developing workplace injury prevention interventions While the papers in this issue treat a variety of important topics in the area of occupational injury prevention, several important issues are not represented. It is hoped that future volumes of this journal will include reports on other approaches such as community based interven- tions, international comparisons that docu- ment diVerences in prevention strategies, and injury prevention methods directed at all phases of injury occurrence or mitigation.47

COMMUNITY INJURY PREVENTION IN THE

WORKPLACE

Traditional occupational injury prevention has focused on individual workplaces that employ many workers, and tended to ignore small workplaces, despite the fact they often have some of the highest injury rates.60 In many environments, both in market economies and in developing countries, there is also little separation of activities between home and work.47 Many of these non-traditional work- places are excluded from health and safety regulations. A potential solution to this prob- lem is to focus on community-wide eVorts at prevention.61

There is much that occupational injury practitioners can learn from the rest of the injury field with regard to serving community groups, such as in the expanded community based eVorts to reduce injuries to farm children.62 Pless’s call to establish contacts between researchers and consumers may help ensure that research will be of use to those who it was designed to help.53 Some non- occupational health funding agencies now included consumers (such as breast cancer survivors) as peer reviewers for their grants programs.63 64

Pless also noted that there are some important diVerences between workplace and other injuries, especially with regard to the implementation of prevention strategies.53

These diVerences may actually present some unique opportunities to the non-occupational injury prevention community to develop, implement, and evaluate prevention eVorts. Many injuries have similar causes no matter where they occur. The workplace can be a valuable laboratory to implement and evaluate community prevention eVorts directed at both on-the-job and oV-the-job injuries, as demon- strated by the many workplace programs designed to increase seat belt use.65 66 Often there are regulations or laws in the workplace that may make it easier to enact or enforce rules than in the outside community. The worksite also provides a captive population to deliver prevention programs, including those directed at lifestyle choices. Finally, some companies, especially those that self insure their employ- ees, have good data systems for capturing information not just on work related injuries, but also about all worker health problems.29 As the trend toward company self insurance continues to grow, the opportunities to moni- tor and improve total worker health within the organizational setting will also grow. These can facilitate intervention evaluation and provide opportunities to evaluate the costs and benefits of the intervention.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDIES

The wide variation in injury rates between countries1 7 47 suggests that there may actually be natural experiments of intervention imple- mentation already in place, if we can recognize them. Higher fatality rates have been identified in fishermen in New Zealand compared to Australia and the United States. Similarly, electrocution fatality rates were higher in Aus- tralia compared to New Zealand, a country with the same voltage (240 volts).7 Whether this is due to diVerent exposures or safety prac- tices between countries has yet to be deter- mined, but more in-depth analyses of causes such as begun by Williamson et al 26 or of work- place policies (such as use of ground fault cir- cuit interrupters)67 may reveal diVerences that could lead to important reductions in fatalities. The recent addition of occupational injuries to the studies included under the International Collaborative EVort of Injury Statistics is an important step in this direction.68

DECREASING INJURY SEVERITY AND POST-EVENT INTERVENTIONS

The early pioneers in injury control realized the need for a broader approach to injury pre- vention at a time “when educational ap- proaches to ‘accident prevention’ were the most popular”.15 Many workplace programs still continue to emphasize only the pre-event phase. Some of the more eVective general injury prevention strategies have been directed at reducing both the severity and likelihood of an injury during an event, or improving recov- ery from an injury. The eVorts to increase

Public health approaches to occupational injury prevention i7

www.injuryprevention.com

automobile safety through better vehicle crash- worthiness and highway barriers are examples of eVective interventions directed at the event phase.47 Similarly, the dramatic reduction in fishing fatalities seen in a study in Alaska were primarily due to increasing survival in the post-event phase and had little eVect on reduc- ing boating mishaps.69 70 Rather than thinking of minor injuries or near misses as indicators of the potential for more serious injuries, it may be more productive—and accurate—to view such incidents as indications of what was done right rather than as failures in prevention. Rehabilitation programs that speed recovery and return to work are also an important part of any comprehensive injury prevention pro- gram,49 but are beyond the scope of this paper. In developing new intervention strategies, it is essential to consider the whole spectrum of approaches to reduce the burden of injuries and not just consider strategies directed at the pre-event phase.

Implementation and dissemination of existing knowledge While more needs to be done to develop and evaluate new intervention strategies, there is also much we already know that works. An important area of investigation is how to elimi- nate those injuries that could be prevented if we applied what we already know. While eVective communication of knowledge and transfer of technology to those who can use it are important, other barriers still exist.

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

The paper by Becker et al provides one example of how to overcome institutional barriers to implementation and get proven interventions out to diverse and diYcult to reach worksites, such as construction.71 Management attitudes to safety and organizational factors are impor- tant determinants of injury risk,46 and Becker et al’s study provides an organizational frame- work to facilitate management commitment to fall safety programs. A key program ingredient was accountability and labor management involvement. While the study found that safety practices improved, there is also a need to demonstrate if these result in actual injury reductions. Control contractors without the intervention also improved in their safety prac- tices, which illustrates the importance of including control populations when evaluating interventions.59 The “Maine 200” initiative, conducted as part of eVorts to “reinvent worker safety and health” at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is an example of applying targeted management approaches towards prevention activities by government.72

COST

Another implementation barrier is cost. Many of the intervention strategies discussed in this volume, and in a recent review of eVective workplace injury interventions73 are expensive. However, the direct costs are often less or no greater than those used to fix the problem once it has occurred, and the indirect costs in the

prevention of worker pain and suVering, lost income and lost opportunities probably render may of these technologies even more cost eVective. For example, the major barrier to ROPS use has been the high cost of retro fitting existing tractors, estimated to be at $937 per tractor in 1993 or $825 000 per life saved.56

While this may seem high, it is about the median cost of lifesaving interventions cur- rently being implemented in society (assuming that about 20 life years are saved per case by ROPS).74 Cost eVectiveness analyses have found that for the range of interventions stud- ied, injury prevention interventions have very favorable cost: benefit ratios. In addition, when the cost per life year saved is compared, those directed at issues such as cancer reduction are usually much more expensive than those for injuries.74 75 There is a need to include more cost eVectiveness studies when conducting injury intervention studies.

IMPLEMENTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH MODEL

A major challenge to public health is how to implement the public health approach to occu- pational injury prevention in the field. The suggestion by Pless that health departments get more involved in occupational injury preven- tion is an important part of implementing this approach.53 Health departments are in a unique position to reach the groups not well served by traditional occupational health and safety agencies, and to coordinate eVorts across diVerent jurisdictions. One successful imple- mentation of the public health model at the state level is Alaska’s occupational injury prevention program. Surveillance data identi- fied Alaska as the state with the highest occupational fatality rate in the United States, almost five times the United States average and about 10 times that of Norway with a similar industrial make-up.69 A multiagency collabora- tive prevention eVort was then developed based on the public health approach of (A) establish- ing surveillance; (B) building multiagency col- laborations; (C) prioritizing prevention eVorts based on surveillance data; and (D) planning appropriate prevention strategies tailored to local conditions. From 1991 to 1998, overall occupational injury fatalities decreased 46% (49% from 1990–99, see updated data in fig 1) with the largest improvements occurring in fishing and logging (particularly helicopter log- ging), two areas identified as priority areas for intervention. An important part of this process was the application of prevention strategies at multiple phases of the Haddon matrix. For example, in logging the biggest improvements came from pre-event strategies, while in fishing the survival rate of each incident improved dramatically, due in part to requiring new safety equipment such as immersion suits, life rafts, and radio beacons to increase the chances of finding vessels.

While not all localities have the benefit of collaboration with a local oYce of NIOSH, the Alaska example provides an important lesion for what can be achieved at a state level. How- ever, the capacity of state (and local) health

i8 Smith

www.injuryprevention.com

departments to address occupational health problems (including injuries) varies widely and has been identified as an important area for development.76 New Jersey is one state with a well-developed program.77 Given the often well established state based activities in non- occupational injury prevention,78 it would make sense to coordinate their activities with any expansion of occupational injury preven- tion eVorts.

Conclusions The articles in this issue, and other reviews of occupational injury interventions, demonstrate that we have made considerable advances in our understanding of injury causes and the means of reducing injuries. To achieve signifi- cant injury reductions will require a much more focused eVort of many diVerent groups, and a societal commitment that any occupa- tional injury is unacceptable. It will also require the development of a skilled scientific work- force to conduct the necessary injury research and train investigators and practitioners alike. Unlike other areas of science, funding for occupational injury research training has not kept up with needs, and a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine identified a critical shortage of doctoral level graduates in occupational injury prevention.79 Many of the new advances in injury prevention will also come about through the integration of laboratory/experimental studies with other public health disciplines. Often experimental articles, such as the studies in this issue, tend to be rather technical in nature and less comprehensive in relating their findings to prior epidemiologic studies. Simi- larly, the more traditional public health studies in this journal make little reference to experi- mental laboratory studies or use experimental data to guide their research. There needs to be more dialogue across disciplines in order to overcome some of the institutional barriers to increasing multidisciplinary work, and access- ing each other’s literature.80

While much is already known regarding eVective prevention strategies, there is often a

large gap between what we know works and what is implemented. More research is needed to define the barriers to intervention imple- mentation and technology transfer from the laboratory to the workplace. Hopefully, this supplement will stimulate further interest in occupational injuries within the broader injury prevention community.

Support for this work was provided by a variety of sources and reflects my own eVorts to examine both work and non-work injuries. The sources include grants from: the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (1 R01 OH03703–01A1), the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R29AA07700), the Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion to the Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy (R49/CC R 302486), and the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DAMD17–95–1–5066). I also wish to acknowledge the contribution of George Conway and Jennifer Lincoln from NIOSH’s Alaska oYce who kindly provided figure 1, and the International Collaborative EVort (ICE) on Injury Statistics for its contributions to developing some of the ideas behind this paper. The ICE is sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health. I would also like to thank the following for helpful comments and suggestions: Janet Johnston, Andrew Lincoln, Nancy Stout, Ted Courtney, Gary Sorock, and Katy Benjamin.

1 Takala J. Global estimates of fatal occupational accidents. Epidemiology 1999;10:640–6.

2 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Worker health chartbook, 2000. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH Centers for Disease Occupational Safety Control, Septem- ber, 2000. DHHS (NIOSH) publication No 2000–127. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/00–127pd.html. Ac- cessed 4 June 2001.

3 CDC. Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1900–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48(12):241–3.

4 CDC. Achievements in Public Health, 1900–1999: im- provements in workplace safety—United States, 1900– 1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48(22):461–9.

5 CDC. Achievements in public health, 1900–1999. Motor- vehicle safety: a 20th century public health achievement. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48(18):369–74.

6 Saari J. Successes and failures in occupational injury prevention. Inj Prev 2001;7:1.

7 Feyer A-M, Williamson AM, Stout N, et al. Comparison of work related fatal injuries in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand: method and overall findings. Inj Prev 2001;7:22–8.

8 Bell NS, Amoroso PJ, Wegman DH, et al. Proposed explanations for excess injury among veterans of the Persian Gulf War and a call for greater attention from poli- cymakers and researchers. Inj Prev 2001;7:4–9.

9 O’Connor P. Work related spinal cord injury, Australia 1986–97. Inj Prev 2001;7:29–34.

10 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. About the NCIPC. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/about/ about.htm. Accessed 9 June 2001.

11 World Health Organization. Violence and Injury Prevention. Available at http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/ index.html. Accessed 9 June 2001.

12 Stout N, Linn H. From strategy to reality: 25 years of plan- ning and progress in occupational injury research. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i11–14.

13 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. National Occupational Injury Research Symposium 2000 (NOIRS 2000). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ noirs/menu.html. Accessed 9 June 2001.

14 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. National Occupational Injury Research Symposium 1997 (NOIRS 97). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/noirs/ noirs97.html. Accessed 9 June 2001.

15 Baker SP. Injury science comes of age. JAMA 1989;262: 2284–5.

16 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Traumatic occupational injury research needs and priorities: a report by the NORA Traumatic Injury Team. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 1998. DHHS publication No (NIOSH) 98–134.

17 National Safety Council. Injury facts 2000 edition. Itasca, IL: National Safety Council, 2000.

18 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States by industry, 1990. (Bulletin 2399.) Washington, DC: US Government Printing OYce, 1992.

19 CDC. Fatal occupational injuries—United States, 1980– 1994. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998;47:297–302.

20 Stout N. Analysis of narrative text fields in occupational injury data. In: A-M Feyer AM, Williamson A, eds. Occupational injury. Risk, prevention and intervention. London: Taylor and Francis, 1998: 15–20.

21 Merchant JA, Lundell JA. Workplace Violence Intervention. Research Workshop, April 5–7, 2001, Washington, DC. Background, rationale, and summary. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:135–40.

100

90

70

80

60

40

50

30

20

0

10

Year

Occupation Fishermen

N o

o f

fa ta

li ti

e s

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Civilian pilots Military

Loggers Other maritime All other

Figure 1 Decline in occupational injury fatalities in Alaska by occupational group and year, 1990–1999 (n=648). Source: Alaska Occupational Injury Surveillance System, updated data from Conway et al, 1999.69 Trend line show total fatality decline.

Public health approaches to occupational injury prevention i9

www.injuryprevention.com

22 Runyan CW, Zakocs RC, Zwerling C. Administrative and behavioral interventions for workplace violence prevention. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(4 suppl):116–27.

23 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Census of fatal occupational injuries summary. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDL 00–236, 17 August 2000.

24 CDC. Welcome to CDC WONDER. Available at: http:// wonder.cdc.gov. Accessed 9 May 2001.

25 Jackson LL. Non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses treated in hospital emergency departments in the United States. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i21–6.

26 Williamson A, Feyer A-M, Stout S, et al. Use of narrative analysis for comparisons of the causes of fatal accidents in three countries: New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i15–20.

27 Smith GS, Dannenberg AL, Amoroso PJ. Hospitalization due to injury in the military: evaluation of current data and recommendations on its use for injury prevention. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(35):41–53.

28 McCullough PA, Smith GS. Evaluation of narrative text for case finding: the need for case accuracy measurement. Am J Ind Med 1998;34:133–6.

29 Sorock GS, Smith GS, Reeve GR, et al. Three perspectives on work-related injury surveillance systems. Am J Ind Med 1997;32:116–28.

30 Brenner RA, Trumble AC, Smith GS, et al. Where children drown, United States, 1995. Pediatrics 2001;108:85–9.

31 Smith GS, Langley JD. Drowning surveillance: how well do E codes identify submersion fatalities. Inj Prev 1998;4:135–9.

32 Warner M, Barnes PM, Fingerhut LA. Injury and poisoning episodes and conditions; National Health Interview Survey, 1997. Vital Health Statistics 10(202). Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.

33 Murphy PL, Sorock GS, Courtney TK, et al. Injury and ill- ness in the American workplace a comparison of data sources. Am J Ind Med 1996;30:130–41.

34 Cormack RM, Chang YF, Smith GS. Estimating deaths from industrial injury by capture-recapture: a cautionary tale. Int J Epidemiol 2000;29:1053–9.

35 Sorock GS, Smith E, Hall N. An evaluation of New Jersey’s hospital discharge database for surveillance of severe occu- pational injuries. Am J Ind Med 1993;23:427–37.

36 CDC. National estimates of nonfatal injuries treated in hos- pital emergency departments—United States, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001;50:340–6

37 McCaig LF, Burt CW, Stussman BJ. A comparison of work- related injury visits and other injury visits to emergency departments in the United States, 1995–1996. J Occup Environ Med 1998;40:870–5.

38 Stone DH, Morrison A, Smith GS. Emergency department injury surveillance systems: the best use of limited resources? Inj Prev 1999;5:166–7.

39 Lincoln AE, Smith GS, Baker SP. The use of existing mili- tary administrative and health databases for injury research. Am J Prev Med 2000;18:8–13.

40 Durbin DR, Bhatia E, Holmes JH, et al. Partners for child passenger safety: a unique child-specific crash surveillance system. Accid Anal Prev 2001;33:407–12.

41 Higgins DN, Casini VJ, Bost P, et al. The fatality assessment and control evaluation program’s role in the prevention of occupational fatalities. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i27–33.

42 Haddon WH. The changing approach to the epidemiology, prevention, and amelioration of trauma: the transition to approaches etiologically rather than descriptively-based. Am J Public Health 1968;58:1431–8.

43 NIOSH FACE reports. FACE web site. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/faceweb.html. Accessed 9 June 2001.

44 Washenitz F II, Stoltzfus J, Newton B, et al. Fire incidents involving regulators used in portable oxygen systems. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i34–7.

45 Courtney TK, Burdorf A, Sorock GS, et al. Methodological challenges to the study of occupational injury–an inter- national epidemiology workshop. Am J Ind Med 1997;32: 103–5.

46 Shannon HS, Robson LS, Sale JEM. Creating safer and healthier workplaces: the role of organizational factors and job characteristics. Am J Ind Med (in press).

47 Barss P, Smith GS, Mohan D, et al. Injury prevention: an international perspective—epidemiology, surveillance and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

48 Mittleman MA, Maldonado G, Gerberich SG, et al. Alternative approaches to analytical designs in occupa- tional injury epidemiology. Am J Ind Med 1997;32:129–41.

49 Rivara FP, Cummings P, Koepsell TD, et al, eds. Injury control: a guide to research and program. Evaluation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

50 Collins JW, Smith GS, Baker SP, et al. A case-control study of forklift and other powered industrial vehicle incidents. Am J Ind Med 1999;36:522–31.

51 Sorock GS, Lombardi DA, Gabel C, et al. Case-crossover studies of occupational trauma: methodological caveats. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i38–42.

52 Simeonov P, Hsiao H. Height, surface firmness, and visual reference eVects on balance control. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i50–3.

53 Pless B. Injury prevention and occupational safety: four questions, three answers. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i68–72.

54 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Assessing occupational safety and health training: a literature

review. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 1998. DHHS publication No (NIOSH) 98–145.

55 Wassell JT, Gardner LI, Landsittel DP, et al. A prospective study of back belts for prevention of back pain and injury. JAMA 2000;284:2727–32.

56 Powers JR, Harris JR, Etherton JR, et al. Preventing tractor rollover fatalities: performance of the NIOSH AutoROPS. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i54–8.

57 Prezant DJ, Malley KS, Barker RL, et al. Thermal protective uniforms and hoods: impact of design modifications and water content on burn prevention in New York City firefighters: laboratory and field results. Inj Prev 2001; 7(suppl I):i43–9.

58 Reed DB, PS Kidd, Westneat S, et al. Agricultural disability awareness and risk education (AgDARE) for high school students. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i59–63.

59 Robson LS, Shannon HS, Goldenhar LM, et al. Guide to evaluating the eVectiveness of strategies for preventing work injuries: how to show whether a safety intervention really works. DHS publication No 2001–119. Available at http:// www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs.html. Accessed 24 June 2001.

60 Lentz TJ, Okun AH, Schulte PA , et al. Identifying high-risk small business industries—the basis for preventing occupational injury, illness, and fatality. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1999, May: 1–153. DHHS publication No (NIOSH) 99–107.

61 Smith GS, Veazie MA. Principles of prevention: the public health approach to preventing injuries in the workplace. ILO encyclopedia of occupational health and safety. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor OYce, 1998;56:26–30.

62 Castillo D, Hard D, Myers J, et al. A national childhood agricultural injury prevention initiative. Journal of Agricul- tural Safety & Health 1998;1:183–91.

63 Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. Consumer Involvement. Available at http:// cdmrp.army.mil/CWG/default.htm. Accessed 6 May 2001.

64 National Institutes of Health. NIH, OYce of Extra Mural Research. Inclusion of public representatives/participants in sci- entific peer review. Available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ peer/public_in_peer_review.htm. Accessed 6 May 2001.

65 Segui-Gomez M. Evaluating worksite-based interventions that promote safety belt use. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(4 suppl):11–22.

66 National Highway TraYc Safety Administration. Employers’ safety programs. Available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ people/outreach/employer. Accessed 4 June 2001.

67 Suruda A, Smith L. Work-related electrocutions involving portable power tools and appliances. J Occup Med 1992;34: 887–92.

68 National Center for Health Statistics. International collabora- tive eVort (ICE) on injury statistics. Available at: http:// www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/ice/ice.htm. Accessed 24 June 2001.

69 Conway GA, Lincoln JM, Husberg BJ, et al. Alaska’s model program for surveillance and prevention of occupational injury deaths. Public Health Rep 1999;114:550–8.

70 Lincoln JM, Conway GA. Preventing commercial fishing deaths in Alaska. Occup Environ Med 1999;56:691–5.

71 Becker P, Fullen M, Akladios M, et al. Prevention of construction falls by organizational intervention. Inj Prev 2001;7(suppl I):i64–7.

72 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor. The new OSHA reinventing worker safety and health, and, Nationalize the “Maine 200” concept. Available at http://www.osha-slc.gov/html/Reinventing. Ac- cessed 20 June 2001.

73 Rivara FP, Thompson DC. Systematic reviews of injury- prevention strategies for occupational injuries: an overview. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(4 suppl):1–3.

74 Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-eVectiveness. Risk Analysis 1995;15:369–90.

75 Graham JD, Corso PS, Morris JM, et al. Evaluating the cost-eVectiveness of clinical and public health measures. Annu Rev Public Health 1998;19:125–52.

76 Stanbury M, Rosenman KD, Anderson HA. Guidelines. Minimum and comprehensive state-based activities in occupa- tional safety and health. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1995. DHHS (NIOSH) publication No 95–107. Available at: http:// www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/95-107.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2001.

77 New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. Occupational Health Surveillance Program. Available at http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/survweb. Accessed 4 June 2001.

78 State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors’ Associ- ation. STIPDA’s mission. Available at http://www. stipda. org. Accessed 4 June 2001.

79 National Academy of Sciences. Safe work in the 21st century: education and training needs for the next decade’s occupational safety and health personnel. Committee to Assess Training Needs for Occupational Safety and Health Personnel in the United States, Board on Health Sciences Policy. Washing- ton, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

80 Beahler CC, Sundheim JJ, Trapp NI. Information retrieval in systematic reviews: challenges in the public health arena. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(4 suppl):6–10.

i10 Smith

www.injuryprevention.com