Department of Environmental Health Science, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, Korea.
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Inhang-ro 27, Jung-gu, Incheon, 22332, Republic of Korea.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022 Aug;95(6):1343-1356. doi: 10.1007/s00420-022-01892-2. Epub 2022 Jun 9.
Most previous studies about missed reporting of nonfatal occupational injuries have four limitations: (i) mostly qualitative methods, (ii) arbitrary fraction used to estimate missed nonfatal occupational injuries based on subjective opinions, (iii) use of datasets derived from only one country, and (iv) use of a relatively simple estimation method. In contrast, (i) using quantitative approaches, this study will calculate the (ii) objective estimates on (iii) a multinational scale. (iv) A newly devised logical approach for estimation will be applied. Through this study, the fraction of missed reports of nonfatal occupational injuries will be estimated in a new way.
Four International Labor Organization (ILO) datasets were analyzed in this study: (i) fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 workers by sex and migrant status, (ii) nonfatal occupational injuries per 100,000 workers by sex and migrant status, (iii) inspectors per 10,000 employed persons, and (iv) labor inspection visits per inspector. The ratification status of 27 ILO conventions, classified into 12 categories, was used for the analyses. The GDP dataset from the World Bank Open Data was also used. In addition to basic descriptive analyses, a multilevel Poisson regression method was applied. The primary outcome was the risk ratio of the above-mentioned four selected measures when an ILO convention was ratified compared to when the convention was not ratified. Finally, for the estimation of the fraction of missed reports of nonfatal occupational injuries, a newly devised estimation method was applied. This method was devised based on a unique characteristic of reporting systems for fatal occupational injuries (duplicate reporting through multiple reporting systems).
The ratio of discovered nonfatal occupational injuries to total estimated nonfatal occupational injuries ranged from 0.13 (95% CI 0.13-0.14) to 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.95). In other words, the minimum estimate of the percentage of missed injury reports is 11% (1-0.89 = 0.11) and the maximum is 87% (1-0.13 = 0.87). The mean value of the ratios of discovered nonfatal occupational injuries to total estimated nonfatal occupational injuries was 0.52. In other words, the most likely estimate for the fraction of missed injury reports is 48% (1-0.52 = 0.48).
Underreporting of nonfatal occupational injuries could hinder the efforts of governments to address and improve the occupational safety and health status of the country. Accurate assessment of the current status of nonfatal occupational injuries is important for devising effective strategies to reduce this type of injury.
以往关于非致命性职业伤害漏报的研究存在四个局限性：(i) 主要采用定性方法；(ii) 基于主观意见，任意使用分数来估计漏报的非致命性职业伤害；(iii) 使用的数据来自于单一国家；(iv) 使用相对简单的估计方法。相比之下，(i) 本研究采用定量方法，(ii) 客观估计，(iii) 跨国规模。(iv) 将采用一种新的逻辑估计方法。通过本研究，将以新的方式估计非致命性职业伤害漏报的比例。
本研究分析了四个国际劳工组织 (ILO) 数据集：(i) 按性别和移民身份划分的每 10 万名工人的致命职业伤害率；(ii) 按性别和移民身份划分的每 10 万名工人的非致命职业伤害率；(iii) 按每 10,000 名受雇人员划分的检查员人数；(iv) 按每名检查员划分的劳动监察访问次数。分析使用了 27 项国际劳工组织公约的批准状况，分为 12 类。还使用了世界银行开放数据的 GDP 数据集。除了基本描述性分析外，还应用了多水平泊松回归方法。主要结果是与未批准公约相比，批准上述四项选定措施时的风险比。最后，为了估计非致命性职业伤害漏报的比例，应用了一种新的估计方法。该方法是基于致命职业伤害报告系统的一个独特特征而设计的(通过多个报告系统进行重复报告)。
已发现的非致命性职业伤害与估计的非致命性职业伤害总数的比例范围为 0.13(95%CI 0.13-0.14)至 0.89(95%CI 0.84-0.95)。换句话说，伤害报告漏报的最小估计百分比为 11%(1-0.89=0.11)，最大百分比为 87%(1-0.13=0.87)。已发现的非致命性职业伤害与估计的非致命性职业伤害总数的比值的平均值为 0.52。换句话说，伤害报告漏报的最可能估计值为 48%(1-0.52=0.48)。
非致命性职业伤害漏报可能会阻碍政府努力解决和改善国家职业安全和健康状况。准确评估非致命性职业伤害的现状对于制定减少此类伤害的有效策略非常重要。
