J Occup Rehabil. 2021 Jun 7. doi: 10.1007/s10926-021-09988-1. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Workers’ compensation claims consist of occupational injuries severe enough to meet a compensability threshold. Theoretically, systems with higher thresholds should have fewer claims but greater average severity. For research that relies on claims data, particularly cross-jurisdictional comparisons of compensation systems, this results in collider bias that can lead to spurious associations confounding analyses. In this study, I use real and simulated claims data to demonstrate collider bias and problems with methods used to account for it.
METHODS: Using Australian claims data, I used a linear regression to test the association between claim rate and mean disability durations across Statistical Areas. Analyses were repeated with nesting by state/territory to account for variations in compensability thresholds across compensation systems. Both analyses are repeated on left-censored data. Simulated claims data are analysed with Cox survival analyses to illustrate how left-censoring can reverse effects.
RESULTS: The claim rate within a Statistical Area was inversely associated with disability duration. However, this reversed when Statistical Areas were nested by state/territory. Left-censoring resulted in an attenuation of the unnested association to non-significance, while the nested association remained significantly positive. Cox regressions with simulated claims data demonstrated how left-censoring can reverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Collider bias can seriously confound work disability research, particularly cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Work disability researchers must grapple with this challenge by using appropriate study designs and analytical approaches, and considering how it affects the interpretation of results.
PMID:34097183 | DOI:10.1007/s10926-021-09988-1
