Occupational Fatality Data Systems: A Sensitivity Analysis of North Carolina Data Systems for Occupational Fatality from 1992-2017.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Catherine S Wolff, Chelsea Leonard Martin, Maryalice Nocera, Shabbar I Ranapurwala, David B Richardson, Elizabeth S McClure, Amelia Martin, Stephen W Marshall
{"title":"Occupational Fatality Data Systems: A Sensitivity Analysis of North Carolina Data Systems for Occupational Fatality from 1992-2017.","authors":"Catherine S Wolff, Chelsea Leonard Martin, Maryalice Nocera, Shabbar I Ranapurwala, David B Richardson, Elizabeth S McClure, Amelia Martin, Stephen W Marshall","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000002053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate surveillance of occupational fatalities is essential to determine their true burden and target prevention programs. The purpose of this study was to estimate the sensitivity of fatal occupational injuries abstracted from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) data system and death certificates in North Carolina (NC) from 1992-2017 overall, by intent, and by race.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified NC occupational fatalities from 1992-2017 through NC OCME data abstractions. From the non-occupational deaths, we sampled 5% of deaths from OCME data even calendar years with estimations applied to odd years. We estimated misclassified non-occupational fatalities using inverse probability of the sampling fraction and calculated sensitivity of the occupational fatalities identified from NC OCME and NC death certificates data by intent and race.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following adjudication of the 5% sample, 41 non-occupational deaths were determined to have been misclassified, suggesting an estimated 1,520 misclassified occupational deaths and an overall sensitivity of 67.8% (66.5%, 69.1%). Sensitivity differed by intent and means [unintentional driving: 62.1%; unintentional non-driving: 73.5%; intentional: 61.3% (58.0%, 64.6%)], and by race [black decedents 63.2%, and white decedents 66.9%].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sensitivity ranged from 61-73% for occupational fatalities, with lower sensitivity observed for unintentional driving and intentional fatalities events among black decedents, indicating higher misclassification of these individuals in the OCME data systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000002053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate surveillance of occupational fatalities is essential to determine their true burden and target prevention programs. The purpose of this study was to estimate the sensitivity of fatal occupational injuries abstracted from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) data system and death certificates in North Carolina (NC) from 1992-2017 overall, by intent, and by race.

Methods: We identified NC occupational fatalities from 1992-2017 through NC OCME data abstractions. From the non-occupational deaths, we sampled 5% of deaths from OCME data even calendar years with estimations applied to odd years. We estimated misclassified non-occupational fatalities using inverse probability of the sampling fraction and calculated sensitivity of the occupational fatalities identified from NC OCME and NC death certificates data by intent and race.

Results: Following adjudication of the 5% sample, 41 non-occupational deaths were determined to have been misclassified, suggesting an estimated 1,520 misclassified occupational deaths and an overall sensitivity of 67.8% (66.5%, 69.1%). Sensitivity differed by intent and means [unintentional driving: 62.1%; unintentional non-driving: 73.5%; intentional: 61.3% (58.0%, 64.6%)], and by race [black decedents 63.2%, and white decedents 66.9%].

Conclusions: Sensitivity ranged from 61-73% for occupational fatalities, with lower sensitivity observed for unintentional driving and intentional fatalities events among black decedents, indicating higher misclassification of these individuals in the OCME data systems.

职业死亡数据系统:1992-2017年北卡罗来纳州职业死亡数据系统的敏感性分析。
背景:准确的职业死亡监测对于确定其真正负担和目标预防规划至关重要。本研究的目的是估计从首席法医办公室(OCME)数据系统和北卡罗来纳州(NC) 1992-2017年总体死亡证明中提取的致命职业伤害的敏感性,按意图和种族划分。方法:通过NC OCME数据提取,确定1992-2017年NC职业死亡人数。从非职业死亡中,我们从OCME数据中抽样了5%的死亡,偶数日历年,估计适用于奇数年。我们使用抽样分数的逆概率来估计错误分类的非职业死亡,并根据意图和种族计算NC OCME和NC死亡证明数据确定的职业死亡的敏感性。结果:在对5%的样本进行裁定后,确定了41例非职业死亡被错误分类,这表明估计有1,520例职业死亡被错误分类,总体敏感性为67.8%(66.5%,69.1%)。不同意图和手段的敏感性差异[非故意驾驶:62.1%;非故意不驾驶占73.5%;故意:61.3%(58.0%,64.6%)],按种族划分[黑人死者63.2%,白人死者66.9%]。结论:职业死亡的敏感性范围为61-73%,黑人死者的意外驾驶和故意死亡事件的敏感性较低,表明OCME数据系统中这些个体的错误分类较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书