A follow-up study of coping strategies of compensation claimants reporting an occupational injury associated with return to work/disability benefits in the subsequent year

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of respondent claimants at the time of reporting an injury according to receiving disability benefits 80% of the subsequent year

	Occupational disease			Industrial accident
	<80%	>80%	P	<80%	>80%	P
Seen more than one therapist	1890 (69.21)	333 (82.63)	0.000	1540 (74.04)	219 (81.11)	0.012
More than one treatment	1266 (48.90)	256 (64.00)	0.000	1482 (72.33)	223 (82.90)	0.000
Short education (10–12 years)	601 (22.11)	118 (29.80)	0.001	472 (22.57)	62 (24.41)	0.510
Gender respondents (women/men))	58.01/41.99	51.59/48.41	0.000	42.36/57.64	43.41/56.59	0.414
Mean age	44.13 [43.95–44.31]	46.35 [45.94–46.76]	s	42.20 [42.00–42.20]	43.13 [42.63–43.63]	s

Note: Numbers (%); Statistical analyses with Chi Square 95%CI. Bold font shows P < 0.05.

Table 2. Comparison of coping strategies of respondent claimants at time of reporting an occupational disease or industrial accident

	Occupational disease	Industrial accident	P
Self-distraction	5.30 [5.24–5.36]	4.93 [4.86–5.00]	0.000
Active coping	5.93 [5.88–5.99]	5.88 [5.82–5.94]	0.010
Denial	3.50 [3.45–3.55]	3.47 [3.41–3.53]	0.304
Substance use	2.26 [2.23–2.28]	2.18 [2.15–2.21]	0.015
Use of emotional support	6.26 [6.20–6.31]	6.02 [5.96–6.09]	0.241
Use of instrumental support	5.49 [5.43–5.55]	5.14 [5.07–5.20]	0.000
Behavioral disengagement	3.01 [2.96–3.06]	2.93 [2.88–2.99]	0.080
Venting	2.76 [2.72–2.80]	2.78 [2.74–2.82]	0.043
Positive reframing	5.25 [5.19–5.31]	5.38 [5.31–5.44]	0.079
Planning	6.34 [6.29–6.39]	6.17 [6.11–6.23]	0.160
Humor	3.31 [3.26–3.36]	3.70 [3.63–3.77]	0.000
Acceptance	5.33 [5.27–5.38]	5.67 [5.60–5.73]	0.000
Religion	2.98 [2.93–3.03]	2.75 [2.70–2.81]	0.000
Self-blame	3.69 [3.63–3.75]	3.39 [3.33–3.46]	0.012

Note 1: Mean, 95% CI; score index 2–8.

Note 2: P describes result of the multivariate logistic analyses incl. all coping strategies, severity of injury, education, gender, and age.

Table 3. Multivariate logistic regression analyses of coping strategies by long-term disability benefits

	Occupational disease	Industrial accident
Number of visited therapists	1.19 [1.01–1.40]	1.51 [1.25–1.81]
Number of different treatments	1.17 [1.05–1.32]	1.10 [0.97–1.25]
Self-distraction	1.13 [1.02–1.24]	1.21 [1.08–1.37]
Active coping	0.85 [0.75–0.95]	0.94 [0.82–1.08]
Denial	0.78 [0.70–0.86]	0.87 [0.76–0.99]
Substance use	1.01 [0.87–1.17]	1.00 [0.82–1.22]
Use of emotional support	1.14 [1.02–1.28]	1.17 [1.02–1.31]
Use of instrumental support	1.06 [0.95–1.17]	1.16 [1.02–1.31]
Behavioral disengagement	1.18 [1.08–1.30]	1.01 [0.90–1.14]
Venting	1.08 [0.96–1.22]	1.10 [0.94–1.29]
Positive reframing	1.06 [0.95–1.17]	1.06 [0.94–1.19]
Planning	1.07 [0.94–1.20]	1.02 [0.88–1.17]
Humor	0.99 [0.90–1.08]	0.92 [0.83–1.01]
Acceptance	0.88 [0.80–0.97]	0.86 [0.77–0.96]
Religion	1.12 [1.03–1.21]	1.06 [0.95–1.18]
Self-blame	1.09 [1.00–1.81]	1.07 [0.96–1.18]
Education	0.84 [0.75–0.94]	0.84 [0.73–0.98]
Gender	1.29 [0.97–1.70]	1.04 [0.75–1.43]
Age	1.01 [1.00–1.03]	1.00 [0.99–1.02]

Note: OR 95%CI; bold figures show P < 0.05.

Table 4. Coping strategies at time of reporting an occupational injury stratified by long-term disability benefit and decision from The National Board of Industrial Injuries

	Recognized with financial compensation			Ongoing			Rejected
			P			P			P
Occupational disease
	< 80%	> 80%		< 80%	> 80%		< 80%	> 80%
Self-distraction	4.45 [4.18–4.71]	5.54 [5.05–6.03]	0.012	4.89 [4.74–5.05]	5.65 [5.38–5.91]	0.017	5.44 [5.37–5.52]	5.59 [5.40–5.77]	0.089
Active coping	5.57 [5.34–5.79]	5.33 [4.76–5.91]	0.066	5.67 [5.54–5.81]	5.96 [5.72–6.21]	0.565	6.07 [6.01–6.14]	5.83 [5.65–6.01]	0.000
Use of emotional support	5.99 [5.76–6.22]	5.96 [5.29–6.62]	0.955	5.87 [5.73–6.01]	6.63 [6.38–6.88]	0.033	6.35 [6.28–6.42]	6.59 [6.43–6.75]	0.040
Use of instrumental support	5.17 [4.93–5.40]	5.50 [4.86–6.14]	0.702	5.11 [4.96–5.25]	5.91 [5.61–6.21]	0.223	5.59 [5.52–5.66]	5.74 [5.55–5.92]	0.465
Positive reframing	5.19 [4.94–5.44]	4.65 [4.06–5.24]	0.673	5.22 [5.08–5.36]	5.11 [4.81–5.41]	0.437	5.30 [5.22–5.37]	5.07 [4.87–5.27]	0.381
Planning	6.14 [5.89–6.38]	6.30 [5.74–6.86]	0.496	6.01 [5.88–6.14]	6.56 [6.32–6.81]	0.301	6.43 [6.37–6.49]	6.48 [6.32–6.64]	0.109
Acceptance	5.83 [5.59–6.06]	4.91 [4.23–5.59]	0.582	5.60 [5.46–5.73]	5.13 [4.85–5.40]	0.051	5.25 [5.18–5.32]	4.94 [4.76–5.13]	0.049
B. Industrial accident
Self-distraction	4.79 [4.61–4.97]	5.28 [4.75–5.80]	0.352	5.06 [4.92–5.19]	5.76 [5.51–6.01]	0.001	4.87 [4.74–5.00]	5.37 [5.01–5.73]	0.215
Active coping	5.83 [5.68–5.98]	5.95 [5.48–6.42]	0.556	6.01 [5.89–6.12]	6.15 [5.89–6.42]	0.128	5.96 [5.85–6.07]	6.07 [5.76–6.39]	0.265
Use of emotional support	5.79 [5.62–5.95]	6.40 [5.93–6.87]	0.298	6.15 [6.02–6.27]	6.60 [6.37–6.84]	0.079	6.01 [5.89–6.13]	6.44 [6.09–6.79]	0.426
Use of instrumental support	5.04 [4.87–5.21]	5.87 [5.43–6.31]	0.058	5.20 [5.07–5.33]	5.70 [5.42–5.98]	0.821	5.13 [5.01–5.25]	5.73 [5.40–6.05]	0.008
Positive reframing	5.53 [5.35–5.70]	5.56 [5.09–6.01]	0.476	5.37 [5.25–5.50]	5.65 [5.35–5.94]	0.265	5.20 [5.07–5.32]	5.12 [4.73–5.50]	0.713
Planning	6.14 [5.99–6.29]	6.48 [6.17–6.78]	0.569	6.22 [6.11–6.34]	6.61 [6.39–6.83]	0.296	6.21 [6.10–6.32]	6.38 [6.08–6.68]	0.850
Acceptance	5.74 [5.58–5.90]	5.46 [4.91–6.02]	0.342	5.61 [5.49–5.73]	5.36 [5.08–5.63]	0.013	5.61 [5.49–5.73]	5.03 [4.67–5.39]	0.035

Note 1: Mean, 95%CI, score index 2–8.

Note 2: Disability benefits more than 80% in the subsequent year after report of injury.

Note 3: P demonstrates the results in multivariate logistic analyses incl. all coping strategies with mean 4+, severity of injury, education, gender, and age.

Figure 1. Coping strategies at time of reporting an occupational injury stratified by gender.

Figure 2. Coping strategies at time of reporting an occupational injury stratified by long-term disability benefits.