Joint application of active and passive surveillance of occupational injuries: Based on UK HSE data
- VernacularTitle:职业伤害主动和被动监测的联合应用分析：基于英国HSE数据
- Author:
Ting XU
1
;
Youhua MO
1
;
Shidi MENG
2
;
Gaofei ZHANG
2
;
Xiaojun ZHU
2
Author Information
- Publication Type:Specialcolumn:Occupationalinjurysurveillanceandassessment
- Keywords: occupational injury; active surveillance; passive surveillance; lost workdays; Join-point regression analysis
- From: Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine 2023;40(10):1155-1160
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
- Abstract: Background The United Kingdom (UK) adopts active surveillance and passive surveillance to jointly collect occupational injury data, and builds a relatively complete occupational injury surveillance system, which can provide reference for the construction of China's occupational injury surveillance system. Objective To compare the results of active surveillance and passive surveillance of occupational injuries in the UK, and to explore the joint application value of active and passive surveillance methods in the field of occupational injury prevention and control. Methods The non-fatal occupational injury active surveillance data from Labor Force Survey were used to calculate indicators such as number of reported cases, reporting rate, lost workdays per year, lost workdays per capita, and average lost workdays per case. The fatal passive surveillance data reported by the employers were used to calculate number of reported deaths, reported mortality, and other indicators. Join-point regression was used to estimate the reported trends of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries from 2004 to 2020, and the annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) were calculated. Results The active surveillance data showed that from 2004 to 2020, the number of reported cases of absenteeism ≥0 d due to occupational injury decreased from 89.7 (95%CI: 85.2, 94.2) per ten thousand to 44.1 (95%CI: 39.1, 49.2) per ten thousand, and the reporting rate of occupational injury decreased from 32100/100000 (95%CI: 3050/100000, 3370/100000) to 1410/100000 (95%CI: 1250/100000, 1570/100000), showing a linear downward trend (both APC and AAPC were −3.88%, P<0.05); the average lost workdays per case in 2019 was 9.1 (95%CI: 6.8, 11.5) d. The passive surveillance data showed that from 2004 to 2020, the number of reported deaths due to occupational injury decreased from 223 to 142, and the reporting rate of occupational injury decreased from 0.78/100000 to 0.44/100000, showing a linear downward trend (both APC and AAPC were −4.59%, P<0.05). Conclusion The reporting rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries in the UK are showing a linear downward trend. The active surveillance method based on Labor Force Survey provides more surveillance indicators for non-fatal occupational injuries, and the passive surveillance method based on employer report has more advantages in assessment of fatal occupational injuries. Jointly applying the two surveillance modalities and the combination of trend analysis indicators, such as AAPC, provide a more comprehensive picture of the epidemiological characteristics of occupational injuries.
