Search

Mental ill health after road traffic injury is common, as is the use of antidepressant medication after injury. Little is known about antidepressant use by injured people prior to their injury. The aim of this study is to describe the nature and extent of antidepressant use before and after road traffic injury.Victorian residents who claimed Transport Accident Commission (TAC) compensation for a non-catastrophic injury that occurred between 2010 and 2012 and provided consent for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) linkage were included (n=734). PBS records dating from 12 months prior through to 12 months post injury were provided by the Department of Human Services (Canberra). PBS and TAC claims data were linked.Among participants, 12% used antidepressants before injury (84.4D efined Daily Doses/1000 person-days) and 17% used antidepressants after injury (114.1DDD/1000p-d). Only 7.7% of the injured cohort commenced antidepressant treatment post injury. Thus, of all post-injury antidepressant use, 45% could potentially be related to the incident injury, with the remaining 55% most probably a continuation of pre-injury use. Pre-injury use was more common among women (109.4 vs. 54.6 DDD/1000p-d, p0.0001), and those with whiplash injury (119.3 vs. 73.1, p=0.03). Cyclists and motorcyclists were less likely to use antidepressants pre-injury than car drivers (18.3 vs. 16.9 vs. 109.3, respectively; p0.001).Less than half of post-injury antidepressant use could potentially be attributable to the incident injury. These results highlight the importance of obtaining information on pre-injury health status before interpreting post-injury health service use to be an outcome of the injury in question.

Introduction Trauma registries are central to the implementation of effective trauma systems. However, differences between trauma registry datasets make comparisons between trauma systems difficult. In 2005, the collaborative Australian and New Zealand National Trauma Registry Consortium began a process to develop a bi-national minimum dataset (BMDS) for use in Australasian trauma registries. This study aims to describe the steps taken in the development and preliminary evaluation of the BMDS. Methods A working party comprising sixteen representatives from across Australasia identified and discussed the collectability and utility of potential BMDS fields. This included evaluating existing national and international trauma registry datasets, as well as reviewing all quality indicators and audit filters in use in Australasian trauma centres. After the working party activities concluded, this process was continued by a number of interested individuals, with broader feedback sought from the Australasian trauma community on a number of occasions. Once the BMDS had reached a suitable stage of development, an email survey was conducted across Australasian trauma centres to assess whether BMDS fields met an ideal minimum standard of field collectability. The BMDS was also compared with three prominent international datasets to assess the extent of dataset overlap. Following this, the BMDS was encapsulated in a data dictionary, which was introduced in late 2010. Results The finalised BMDS contained 67 data fields. Forty-seven of these fields met a previously published criterion of 80% collectability across respondent trauma institutions; the majority of the remaining fields either could be collected without any change in resources, or could be calculated from other data fields in the BMDS. However, comparability with international registry datasets was poor. Only nine BMDS fields had corresponding, directly comparable fields in all the national and international-level registry datasets evaluated. Conclusion A draft BMDS has been developed for use in trauma registries across Australia and New Zealand. The email survey provided strong indications of the utility of the fields contained in the BMDS. The BMDS has been adopted as the dataset to be used by an ongoing Australian Trauma Quality Improvement Program.

Introduction: Despite widespread application of the public health approach to injury prevention, there is an acknowledged limitation in the extent to which it facilitates translation of research evidence to injury prevention practice. Aim: In this paper we clarify the ecoepidemiological principles that underpin the public health approach to injury control in order to support explicit efforts to address the multilevel component causes and improve the evidence base on which effective program implementation depends. Keypoints: If injury causation is understood in terms of the ecoepidemiological model rather than the proximal risk factor model, then quantification of the context in which the event occurs is evidently as important as quantification of the energy exchange event itself. The ecoepidemiological model of injury causation recognises barriers and facilitators to injury prevention as component causes of population burden of injury and thus delineates these factors as legitimate targets for intervention. Injury prevention programs that are designed to specifically address the factors causally related to the program's implementation, as well as the contextual factors that determine the characteristics of the energy exchange event, are more likely to be implemented and more likely to result in effective uptake of recommended energy exchange countermeasures. Conclusion: Interventions to reduce the burden of injury in the population should address the individual level factors that increase the risk of injury, but also the upstream factors that influence the extent to which there is widespread adoption by individuals of the recommended countermeasures.

Introduction: Acute orthopaedic trauma is a major contributor to the global burden of disease. This study aims to synthesise and summarise current knowledge concerning prognostic factors for return to work and duration of work disability following acute orthopaedic trauma. Methods: A systematic review of prognostic studies was performed. The Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and AMED electronic databases were searched for studies between 1985 and May 2009. Included studies were longitudinal, reported results with multivariate statistical analyses appropriate to prognostic studies, comprised persons employed at the time of the injury, included prognostic factors measured proximal to the injury and focused on upper and lower extremity injuries. Results: Searches yielded 980 studies of which 15 met the inclusion criteria and were rated for methodological quality. Analysis focused on the 14 factors considered in more than one study. There was limited evidence for the role of any factor as a predictor of return to work. There is strong evidence for level of education and blue collar work and moderate evidence for self-efficacy, injury severity and compensation as prognostic factors for the duration of work disability. Significant methodological issues were encountered in the course of the review that limited interpretation of the evidence and the conclusions that could be drawn from the findings. Conclusion: People who have sustained acute orthopaedic trauma regardless of severity experience difficulties in returning to work. Due to the lack of factors considered in more than one cohort, the results of this review are inconclusive. The review highlights the need for more prospective studies that are methodologically rigorous, have larger sample sizes and considers a comprehensive range of factors.