European Spine Journal

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 415–418 | Cite as

Whiplash injuries in Finland: the situation 3 years later

  • Timo MiettinenEmail author
  • Eeva Leino
  • Olavi Airaksinen
  • Karl-August Lindgren
Original Article


The aim of this study was to define the influence of whiplash injuries on the perceived condition of health 3 years after injury. We evaluated remaining symptoms and the use of health services. Insurance companies provided reports and medical certificates from traffic accidents in Finland in 1998, for those injured who had agreed to take part in the study. Participants in the 1-year follow-up study answered a self-report questionnaire. Three years after the whiplash-causing accident, 11.8% of participants reported that injury symptoms had caused their health to deteriorate significantly as compared with before the accident. Neck pain was the most common single symptom, reported by 14.6% of respondents. The severity of the initial symptoms according to the WAD classification is reflected in the subject’s self-perception of health after 3 years. A remarkable 10–17% of respondents still used health services regularly because of the symptoms. Although some of the injured had improved in the long term, some reported that their health condition was worse after 3 years than at the 1-year follow-up. The percentage of respondents reporting a significant health deterioration remains unchanged 3 years after the whiplash injury. These findings illuminate the importance of early recognition of risk factors for long-term disability and the primary treatment and rehabilitation procedures.


Whiplash injury Traffic accidents Prognosis Rehabilitation 



This work was supported financially by the Finnish Motor Insurers’ Centre.


  1. 1.
    Berglund A, Alfredsson L, Jensen I, Cassidy D, Nygren Å (2001) The association between exposure to a rear-end collision and future health complaints. Jour Clin Epidemiol 54:851–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunketrop L, Nordholm L, Carlsson J (2002) A descriptive analysis of disorders in patients 17 years following motor vehicle accidents. Eur Spine J 11:227–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castro WHM, Meyer SJ, Becke MER, Nentwig CG, Hein MF, Ercan BI et al (2001) No stress—no whiplash? Prevalence of “whiplash” symptoms following exposure to a placebo rear-end collision. Int J Legal Med 114:316–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L (2000) Is a lifetime history of neck injury in a traffic collision associated with prevalent neck pain, headache and depressive symptomatology? Accid Anal Prev 32:151–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L, Frank JW, Bombardier C (2001) A systematic review of the prognosis of acute whiplash and a new conceptual framework to synthesize the literature. Spine 26:E445–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrari R, Kwan O, Russell AS, Pearce JMS, Schrader H (1999) The best approach to the problem of whiplash? One ticket to Lithuania, please. Clin Exp Rheumatol 17:321–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hildingsson C, Toolanen G (1990) Outcome after soft-tissue injury of the cervical spine. A prospective study of 93 car-accident victims. Acta Orthop Scand 61:357–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lovell ME, Galasko CSB (2002) Whiplash disorders—a review. Injury 33:97–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayou R, Tyndel S, Bryant B (1997) Long-term outcome of motor vehicle accident injury. Psychosom Med 59:578–584PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miettinen T, Lindgren KA, Airaksinen O, Leino E (2002) Whiplash injuries in Finland: A prospective 1-year follow-up study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 20:399–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pietrobon R, Coeytaux RR, Carey TS, Richrdson WJ, De Vellis RF (2002) Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction: a systematic review. Spine 27:515–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scmitz N, Kruse J, Tress W (1999) Psychometric properties of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in German primary care sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand 100:462–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR et al (1995) Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine 20:S1-S73Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC (1996) Soft-tissue injuries of the cervical spine, 15-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 78B:955–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suissa S, Harder S, Veilleux M (2001) The relation between initial symptoms and signs and prognosis of whiplash. Eur Spine J 10:44–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Söderlund A, Lindberg P (1999) Long-term functional and psychological problems in whiplash associated disorders. Int J Rehabil Res 22:77–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varjonen J, Romanov K, Heikkilä K (1997) Self-rated depression in 12,603 middle-aged adults. Nord J Psychiatry 51:331–338Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timo Miettinen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eeva Leino
    • 1
  • Olavi Airaksinen
    • 1
  • Karl-August Lindgren
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland
  2. 2. Rehabilitation UnitInvalid Foundation, Orthopaedic HospitalHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations