BACKGROUND: Early magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) for nonspecific low back pain (LBP) not adherent to clinical guidelines is linked with prolonged work disability. Although the prevalence of eMRI for occupational LBP varies substantially among states, it is unknown whether the risk of prolonged disability associated with eMRI varies according to individual and area-level characteristics. The aim was to explore whether the known risk of increased length of disability (LOD) associated with eMRI scanning not adherent to guidelines for occupational LBP varies according to patient and area-level characteristics, and the potential reasons for any observed variations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 59,360 LBP cases from 49 states, filed between 2002 and 2008, and examined LOD as the outcome. LBP cases with at least 1 day of work disability were identified by reviewing indemnity service records and medical bills using a comprehensive list of codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9) indicating LBP or nonspecific back pain, excluding medically complicated cases. RESULTS: We found significant between-state variations in the negative impact of eMRI on LOD ranging from 3.4 days in Tennessee to 14.8 days in New Hampshire. Higher negative impact of eMRI on LOD was mainly associated with female gender, state workers' compensation (WC) policy not limiting initial treating provider choice, higher state orthopedic surgeon density, and lower state MRI facility density. CONCLUSION: State WC policies regulating selection of healthcare provider and structural factors affecting quality of medical care modify the impact of eMRI not adherent to guidelines. Targeted healthcare and work disability prevention interventions may improve work disability outcomes in patients with occupational LBP.

INTRODUCTION: Falls are the leading cause of injury in almost all age-strata in the U.S. However, fall-related injuries (FI) and their circumstances are under-studied at the population level, particularly among young and middle-aged adults. This study examined the circumstances of FI among community-dwelling U.S. adults, by age and gender. METHODS: Narrative texts of FI from the National Health Interview Survey (1997-2010) were coded using a customized taxonomy to assess place, activity, initiating event, hazards, contributing factors, fall height, and work-relatedness of FI. Weighted proportions and incidence rates of FI were calculated across six age-gender groups (18-44, 45-64, 65+ years; women, men). RESULTS: The proportion of FI occurring indoors increased with age in both genders (22%, 30%, and 48% among men, and 40%, 49% and 62% among women for 18-44, 45-64, 65+ age-groups, respectively). In each age group the proportion of indoor FI was higher among women as compared to men. Among women, using the stairs was the second leading activity (after walking) at the time of FI (19%, 14% and 10% for women in 18-44, 45-64, 65+ age groups, respectively). FI associated with tripping increased with age among both genders, and women were more likely to trip than men in every age group. Of all age-gender groups, the rate of FI while using ladders was the highest among middle-aged men (3.3 per 1000 person-year, 95% CI 2.0, 4.5). Large objects, stairs and steps, and surface contamination were the three most common hazards noted for 15%, 14% and 13% of fall-related injuries, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rate and the circumstances of FI differ by age and gender. Understanding these differences and obtaining information about circumstances could be vital for developing effective interventions to prevent falls and FI.

BACKGROUND: A common issue in descriptive injury epidemiology is that in order to calculate injury rates that account for the time spent in an activity, both injury cases and exposure time of specific activities need to be collected. In reality, few national surveys have this capacity. To address this issue, we combined statistics from two different national complex surveys as inputs for the numerator and denominator to estimate injury rate, accounting for the time spent in specific activities and included a procedure to estimate variance using the combined surveys. METHODS: The 2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) was used to quantify injuries, and the 2010 American Time Use Survey (ATUS) was used to quantify time of exposure to specific activities. The injury rate was estimated by dividing the average number of injuries (from NHIS) by average exposure hours (from ATUS), both measured for specific activities. The variance was calculated using the 'delta method', a general method for variance estimation with complex surveys. RESULTS: Among the five types of injuries examined, 'sport and exercise' had the highest rate (12.64 injuries per 100 000 h), followed by 'working around house/yard' (6.14), driving/riding a motor vehicle (2.98), working (1.45) and sleeping/resting/eating/drinking (0.23). The results show a ranking of injury rate by activity quite different from estimates using population as the denominator. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach produces an estimate of injury risk which includes activity exposure time and may more reliably reflect the underlying injury risks, offering an alternative method for injury surveillance and research.