Ruser J W
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC, USA.
Am J Ind Med. 1998 Feb;33(2):151-6. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199802)33:2<151::aid-ajim6>3.0.co;2-0.
The U.S. government currently publishes workplace fatality rates, using employment as the denominator. However, employment may not be a good proxy for worker exposure to risk if groups of workers differ in their hours worked. Using micro data from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries and Current Population Survey, this paper presents alternative fatality rates calculated using employment and hours worked. Rates are compared for worker groups defined by gender, age, occupation, and industry. In general, both measures identify the same groups of workers as facing especially high and low fatality risks. The rank correlation of the employment- and hours-based fatality rates for 222 detailed occupations is very high, with a value of 0.99. However, for a few groups, the hours- and employment-based rates may differ more than 10%. Most notably, workers below age 20 and above age 64 have rates that are 60% and 37% higher, respectively, when hours is used in the denominator. This suggests that hours--the conceptually preferable denominator--should be used when possible to calculate workplace fatality rates.
美国政府目前公布工作场所死亡率，以就业人数作为分母。然而，如果不同工人群体的工作时长存在差异，就业人数可能并非衡量工人面临风险程度的良好指标。本文利用来自《致命职业伤害普查》和《当前人口调查》的微观数据，呈现了使用就业人数和工作时长计算得出的替代死亡率。对按性别、年龄、职业和行业划分的工人群体的死亡率进行了比较。总体而言，两种衡量方法都识别出面临特别高和特别低死亡风险的相同工人群体。222个详细职业的基于就业人数和基于工作时长的死亡率的等级相关性非常高，数值为0.99。然而，对于少数群体，基于工作时长和基于就业人数的死亡率可能相差超过10%。最显著的是，以工作时长作为分母时，20岁以下和64岁以上工人的死亡率分别高出60%和37%。这表明，在可能的情况下，计算工作场所死亡率时应使用工作时长（从概念上讲更合适的分母）。
