0
Letters |

Risk of Injury Among Workers With Disability

Katherine Seelman, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Margaret A. Winker, MDSenior Editor: IndividualAuthor
Phil B. Fontanarosa, MDSenior Editor: IndividualAuthor

Copyright 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

More Author Information
JAMA. 1998;279(17):1348-1350. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-279-17-jbk0506
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor.—As director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, I wish to enlist the medical research community in an effort to develop adequate measures of disability so that future articles will report more balanced findings than the study by Dr Zwerling and colleagues.1

The authors identified an area of vital concern to both the research and the disability communities, namely, the relationship among work, disability, and injury. While I am sure it was not their intent to support a stereotype of disabled workers, nonetheless, this may be the result. The findings of this article are troubling because they do not adequately address significant measurement limitations. In addition, sampling decisions may have been arbitrary, and the sample choice may have had a negative impact on the results.

The authors do not adequately acknowledge the impact of limitations of existing measures of disability on their findings. Current measures do not include important factors, such as level of accommodation, that more accurately portray the experience of disabled workers in the workplace. It would be important to know, for instance, if an employer incorporated accessibility standards in implementing risk management procedures.

The article is based on measurement and sampling decisions that may bias the findings of the study on which it is based. For instance, to identify subjects with blindness and deafness, the authors used sources other than the condition lists to identify cases. Persons with other disabilities were selected only from the condition lists; thus, the authors introduced systematic bias to increase the size of the domain. Use of the condition lists alone would have provided an insufficient sample of persons with vision impairments and resulted in statistical findings of questionable significance for persons with hearing impairments. Further, one of the assumptions results in the exclusion of 3728 cases from the analysis. Without this exclusion, the results are not statistically significant.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted with the support of many different constituencies, including representatives from the field of medical rehabilitation. This field is at the early stages in developing the measurement tools to move beyond a focus on condition to a focus on the interaction of impairment, function, and the environment. This change will enable us to form a more complete understanding of how persons with disabilities function in the workplace. The World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research have addressed these problems. I invite further participation from the JAMA readership so that we move forward together.

REFERENCES

Zwerling  C, Whitten  PS, Davis  CS, Sprince  NL. Occupational injuries among workers with disabilities: the National Health Interview Survey, 1985-1994. JAMA. 1997;2782163- 2166[published correction appears in JAMA. 1998;279:1350].

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

Zwerling  C, Whitten  PS, Davis  CS, Sprince  NL. Occupational injuries among workers with disabilities: the National Health Interview Survey, 1985-1994. JAMA. 1997;2782163- 2166[published correction appears in JAMA. 1998;279:1350].
CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
Accreditation Information The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Response

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.