Back

Creation of a Clinical Decision-Support Tool for Assigning Occupational Disability to United States Air Force Personnel

Uptegraft, C. C.; Witkop, C. T.

2020-05-11 health informatics
10.1101/2020.05.07.20090530 medRxiv
Show abstract

Occupational dispositions (profiles) are the top reason active duty service members are not medically ready to deploy or fulfill their job responsibilities. An audit across multiple U.S. Air Force (AF) medical treatment facilities revealed significant shortcomings in how medical providers assign profiles. We aimed to create a predictive model and a decision-support tool that estimates profile duration. Using retrospective profiles (n=1,546,805) from the Aeromedical Services Information Management System between 1 Feb 2007 and 31 Jan 2017, we built and validated a decision-support tool that estimates profile length. Multivariate quantile regressions (n=2,575) were performed across five quantiles and six levels of diagnostic specificity for every diagnostic code with 2,100 or more observations. The models universally estimated profile duration with very poor accuracy (pseudoR2 0.000 to 0.168); however, predictive ability was directly correlated with quantile level with minimal variation by diagnostic specificity. Age, O4 to O6+ ranks, very heavy job class, and co-morbid conditions were all significant in more than 25.0% of regressions down all levels of diagnostic specificity. Age, co-morbid conditions, E7-E9 ranks, O4 to O6+ ranks, and light job class all added days to profile duration while E1 to E4 ranks, heavy, and very heavy job class subtracted days. While this study failed to produce an accurate tool, several findings, the indirect correlation between profile duration and very heavy job class and the assignment of durations based on convenient calendar times, warrant further investigation. For now, providers may consult existing decision-support tools when building profiles for AF service members, heeding attention that they were built with non-representative civilian populations. DisclaimerThe views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.5%
3
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 19%
6.3%
5
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.9%
7
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
8
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
11
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
13
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
14
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
15
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
18
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
22
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
26
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
29
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
30
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%