[Comparison between two different Disability Weights calculations: the case of occupational injuries]

Area of Science:

• Occupational Health
• Public Health
• Epidemiology

Background:

• The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study uses Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) to quantify disease burden.
• The National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL) uses a Degree of Disability (GI) system for occupational injuries.
• Comparing these methodologies is crucial for accurate burden of disease estimation in occupational settings.

Purpose of the Study:

• To introduce the concept of DALYs for occupational injury burden calculation.
• To compare INAIL's disability weights methodology with the WHO's GBD methodology.
• To facilitate future Burden of Disease estimations on regional-national levels using NHS data.

Main Methods:

• Comparison of WHO's GBD Disability Weights (DW) and INAIL's Degree of Disability (GI) methodologies.
• Utilized occupational injury data from Tuscany (2001-2008).
• Applied literature-based equations to correct for systematic biases due to differing classification criteria.

Main Results:

• INAIL data shows permanent consequences even in minor injuries, contrasting with WHO assumptions.
• Discrepancies observed in classifying lifelong disabilities for fractures and spinal cord injuries.
• INAIL's GI values are generally lower for severe injuries and higher for less severe ones compared to WHO DW.
• INAIL systematically records longer durations for temporary disabilities.

Conclusions:

• The INAIL system captures more detailed case information, offering potential for richer data synthesis.
• Significant uncertainties remain in precisely comparing the two systems.
• Further empirical research is needed to refine Disability Weights, disability durations, and injury-related mortality variations.