Skip to main content

Table 4 Predictors overall fairness of the compensation process

From: Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: a comparative study

Independent variables Overall fairness claims process
Model 1 Model 2
AOR CI p AOR CI   p
Age 0.99 0.97, 1.01 .21 1.00 0.97, 1.02 .73
Gender 0.75 0.38, 1.48 .41 0.79 0.37, 1.68 .54
Country of birth 0.91 0.44, 1.87 .79 0.87 0.38, 1.97 .73
Socio-economic status 1.84 0.95, 3.56 .07 1.38 0.65, 2.94 .41
Education 0.58 0.28, 1.21 .15 0.46 0.20, 1.06 .07
Marital status 2.11 1.09, 4.06 .03 1.69 0.81, 3.55 .16
Injury 0.43 0.19, 0.94 .04 0.65 0.26, 1.60 .35
Hospital admission 0.73 0.36, 1.49 .38 1.08 0.48, 2.45 .85
Time after injury 1.04 0.54, 1.99 .91 1.08 0.48, 2.44 .86
Medical assessment      0.31 0.12, 0.78 .01
Lawyer involvement      0.33 0.13, 0.81 .02
Claim status      1.71 0.68, 4.32 .26
Previous claim      1.66 0.68, 4.03 .26
  1. Notes: Model 1 Nagelkerke R2 = .111; Model 2 Nagelkerke R2 = .339
  2. Multiple logistic regression analysis, modelling the probability that the process was considered fair (versus not fair/neutral). The first model includes demographic and injury details. The second model adds the claim factors. ‘At-fault’ was not included because this variable only applies to the Victorian sample. There was no multicollinearity
  3. Coding: Gender (0 = Male; 1 = Female); Country of birth (0 = Other; 1 = Australia); Socio-economic status (0 = Lower; 1 = Higher); Education (0 = Low/Medium; 1 = High); Marital status (0 = Single/Divorced; 1 = Married); Injury (0 = Other; 1 = Whiplash/soft tissue injury); Hospital admission (0 = No; 1 = Yes); Time after injury (0 = 12 months; 1 = 24 months). Medical assessment (0 = No; 1 = Yes); Lawyer involvement (0 = No; 1 = Yes); Claim status (0 = Pending; 1 = Settled); Previous claim (0 = No; 1 = Yes); Overall fairness claims process (0 = not fair/neutral, 1 = fair). Reference category = 0