Re: Spearing and Connelly. Is compensation bad for your health? A systematic meta-review. Injury 2011;42:15-24

The Nature of Whiplash in a Compensable Environment: Injury, Disability, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Systems

Synopsis Whiplash is a compensable injury in many jurisdictions, but there is considerable heterogeneity in the compensation arrangements that apply across jurisdictions, even within some countries. These compensation schemes have, however, been subject to a common set of interrelated concerns, chiefly concerning the incentives, behaviors, and outcomes that may arise when financial compensation for injuries is available to injured parties. This article provides a nontechnical overview of some of those concerns through the lens of economics: principally, insurance economics and health economics, including related subsets such as information economics and agency theory, as well as economics and the law. It notes that because it is generally infeasible to randomize the treatment (ie, compensation) via trials, analyses of observational data are necessary to discover more about the relationship between compensation and health outcomes. This poses the analytical challenge of discovering causal connections between phenomena from nonrandomized data sets. The present article calls for further research that would enable convincing causal interpretations of such relationships via the careful analysis of rich observational data sets using modern econometric methods. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(7):503-508. Epub 16 Jun 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7533.

Factitious disorders and malingering: challenges for clinical assessment and management

Compared with other psychiatric disorders, diagnosis of factitious disorders is rare, with identification largely dependent on the systematic collection of relevant information, including a detailed chronology and scrutiny of the patient's medical record. Management of such disorders ideally requires a team-based approach and close involvement of the primary care doctor. As deception is a key defining component of factitious disorders, diagnosis has important implications for young children, particularly when identified in women and health-care workers. Malingering is considered to be rare in clinical practice, whereas simulation of symptoms, motivated by financial rewards, is regarded as more common in medicolegal settings. Although psychometric investigations (eg, symptom validity testing) can inform the detection of illness deception, such tests need support from converging evidence sources, including detailed interview assessments, medical notes, and relevant non-medical investigations. A key challenge in any discussion of abnormal health-care-seeking behaviour is the extent to which a person's reported symptoms are considered to be a product of choice, or psychopathology beyond volitional control, or perhaps both. Clinical skills alone are not typically sufficient for diagnosis or to detect malingering. Medical education needs to provide doctors with the conceptual, developmental, and management frameworks to understand and deal with patients whose symptoms appear to be simulated. Central to the understanding of factitious disorders and malingering are the explanatory models and beliefs used to provide meaning for both patients and doctors. Future progress in management will benefit from an increased appreciation of the contribution of non-medical factors and a greater awareness of the conceptual and clinical findings from social neuroscience, occupational health, and clinical psychology.

Do compensation processes impair mental health? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Victims who are involved in a compensation processes generally have more health complaints compared to victims who are not involved in a compensation process. Previous research regarding the effect of compensation processes has concentrated on the effect on physical health. This meta-analysis focuses on the effect of compensation processes on mental health.

METHOD

Prospective cohort studies addressing compensation and mental health after traffic accidents, occupational accidents or medical errors were identified using PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Relevant studies published between January 1966 and 10 June 2011 were selected for inclusion.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included. The first finding was that the compensation group already had higher mental health complaints at baseline compared to the non-compensation group (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to -0.10; p=.01). The second finding was that mental health between baseline and post measurement improved less in the compensation group compared to the non-compensation group (SMD=-0.35; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01; p=.05). However, the quality of evidence was limited, mainly because of low quality study design and heterogeneity.

DISCUSSION

Being involved in a compensation process is associated with higher mental health complaints but three-quarters of the difference appeared to be already present at baseline. The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited quality of evidence. The difference at baseline may be explained by a selection bias or more anger and blame about the accident in the compensation group. The difference between baseline and follow-up may be explained by secondary gain and secondary victimisation. Future research should involve assessment of exposure to compensation processes, should analyse and correct for baseline differences, and could examine the effect of time, compensation scheme design, and claim settlement on (mental) health.

Whiplash and the compensation hypothesis

STUDY DESIGN

Review article.

OBJECTIVE

To explain why the evidence that compensation-related factors lead to worse health outcomes is not compelling, either in general, or in the specific case of whiplash.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is a common view that compensation-related factors lead to worse health outcomes ("the compensation hypothesis"), despite the presence of important, and unresolved sources of bias. The empirical evidence on this question has ramifications for the design of compensation schemes.

METHODS

Using studies on whiplash, this article outlines the methodological problems that impede attempts to confirm or refute the compensation hypothesis.

RESULTS

Compensation studies are prone to measurement bias, reverse causation bias, and selection bias. Errors in measurement are largely due to the latent nature of whiplash injuries and health itself, a lack of clarity over the unit of measurement (specific factors, or "compensation"), and a lack of appreciation for the heterogeneous qualities of compensation-related factors and schemes. There has been a failure to acknowledge and empirically address reverse causation bias, or the likelihood that poor health influences the decision to pursue compensation: it is unclear if compensation is a cause or a consequence of poor health, or both. Finally, unresolved selection bias (and hence, confounding) is evident in longitudinal studies and natural experiments. In both cases, between-group differences have not been addressed convincingly.

CONCLUSION

The nature of the relationship between compensation-related factors and health is unclear. Current approaches to testing the compensation hypothesis are prone to several important sources of bias, which compromise the validity of their results. Methods that explicitly test the hypothesis and establish whether or not a causal relationship exists between compensation factors and prolonged whiplash symptoms are needed in future studies.