HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Smith, G S Articles by Pransky, G S Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, G S Articles by Pransky, G S

Blurring the distinctions between on and off the job injuries: similarities and differences in circumstances

¹ Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, USA
² Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr G Smith
Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA 01748, USA; Gordon.Smith{at}LibertyMutual.com

Objectives: To compare the causes of non-fatal work and non-work injuries and the places or environments where they occur. It has been suggested that many injuries may have similar etiologies on and off the job and thus involve some common prevention strategies. However lack of comparable data on work relatedness has prevented testing this proposition.

Methods: The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) now collects information on the cause, location, and work relatedness of all medically attended injuries. National US estimates of non-fatal work and non-work injuries were compared by cause and place/location for working age adults (18–64 years).

Results: Overall 28.6% of injuries to working age adults were work related (37.5% among employed people). The causes and locations of many work and non-work injuries were similar. Falls, overexertion, and struck/caught by were leading causes for work and non-work injuries. Motor vehicle injuries were less likely to be work related (3.4% at work v 19.5% non-work) and overexertion injuries more likely to be work related (27.1% v 13.8%). Assaults were less than 1% of work injuries and 1.8% of non-work injuries. Both work and non-work injuries occurred in every location examined—including the home where 3.5% of injuries were work related.

Conclusions: Work and non-work injuries share many similarities suggesting opportunities to broaden injury prevention programs commonly restricted to one setting or the other. Comprehensive efforts to prevent both non-work and work injuries may result in considerable cost savings not only to society but also directly to employers, who incur much of the associated costs.

Abbreviations: BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics Surveys; CAPI, Computer Assisted Personal Interview; ICD-9CM, International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification; IRR, incidence rate ratio; NCHS, National Center for Health Statistics; NHDS, National Hospital Discharge Survey; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey

Keywords: interview surveys; causes; place; location; work and non-work; occupational; adults