Inability to Work Fulltime and the Association with Paid Employment One Year After the Work Disability Assessment: A Longitudinal Register-Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Disability benefit applicants with residual work capacity are often not able to work fulltime. In Dutch work disability benefit assessments, the inability to work fulltime is an important outcome, indicating the number of hours the applicant can sustain working activities per day. This study aims to gain insight into the association between inability to work fulltime and having paid employment 1 year after the assessment. METHODS: The study is a longitudinal register-based cohort study of work disability applicants who were granted a partial disability benefit (n = 8300). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the association between inability to work fulltime and having paid employment 1 year after the assessment, separately for working and non-working applicants. RESULTS: For disability benefit applicants, whether working (31.9%) or not working (68.1%) at the time of the disability assessment, there was generally no association between inability to work fulltime and having paid employment 1 year later. However, for working applicants diagnosed with a musculoskeletal disease or cancer, inability to work fulltime was positively and negatively associated with having paid employment, respectively. For non-working applicants with a respiratory disease or with multimorbidity, inability to work fulltime was negatively associated with paid employment. CONCLUSIONS: Inability to work fulltime has limited association with paid employment 1 year after the disability benefit assessment, regardless of the working status at the time of assessment. However, within certain disease groups, inability to work fulltime can either increase or decrease the odds of having paid employment after the assessment.

Residual Work Capacity and (In)Ability to Work Fulltime Among a Year-Cohort of Disability Benefit Applicants Diagnosed with Mental and Behavioural Disorders.

AIMS: Residual work capacity and inability to work fulltime are important outcomes in disability benefit assessment for workers with mental and behavioural disorders. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the prevalence and associations of socio-demographic and disease-related factors of these outcomes across different mental and behavioural diagnoses groups. METHODS: A year cohort of anonymized register-data of patients diagnosed with a mental or behavioural disorder who claim a work disability benefit after two years of sick-leave was used (n = 12,325, age 44.5 ± 10.9, 55.5% female). Limitations in mental and physical functioning caused by disease are indicated according to the Functional Ability List (FAL). No residual work capacity was defined as having no possibilities to work, whereas inability to work fulltime was defined as being able to work less than 8 h per day. RESULTS: The majority (77.5%) of the applicants were assessed with residual work capacity, of these 58.6% had an ability to work fulltime. Applicants diagnosed with (post-traumatic) stress, mood affective and delusional disorders showed significant higher odds for no residual work capacity and for inability to work fulltime, while other diagnoses groups, like adjustment and anxiety disorders, showed decreased odds for both assessment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The type of mental and behavioural disorder seems important in the assessment of residual work capacity and inability to work fulltime, as the associations differ significantly between the specific diagnoses groups.

Residual work capacity and (in)ability to work fulltime among a year cohort of cancer survivors who claim a disability benefit.

PURPOSE: Residual work capacity (RWC) and inability to work fulltime (IWF) are important outcomes in disability benefit assessments for workers diagnosed with cancer. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the prevalence of both outcomes, the associations of disease-related and socio-demographic factors and if these differ across cancer diagnosis groups. METHODS: A year cohort of anonymized register data of cancer survivors who claim a disability benefit after 2 years of sick leave (n = 3690, age 53.3 ± 8.8, 60.4% female) was used. Having no RWC was defined as having no possibilities to perform any work at all, whereas IWF was defined as being able to work less than 8 h per day. RESULTS: The prevalence of being assessed with no RWC was 42.6%. Of the applicants with RWC (57.4%), 69.8% were assessed with IWF. Cancers of the respiratory organs showed the highest odds for having no RWC, whereas lymphoid and haematopoietic cancers showed the highest odds for IWF. Within specific cancer diagnosis groups, different associations were identified for both outcomes. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of no RWC and IWF in applicants of work disability benefits diagnosed with cancer is high compared to the prevalence in other diagnoses. The odds for no RWC, IWF, and associated factors differ per cancer diagnosis group. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Being diagnosed with cancer has an enormous impact on work (dis)ability. Our results show that 2 years after being diagnosed with cancer, the majority of the disability benefit applicants are assessed with RWC; however, only 15% of all applicants with cancer had a normal ability to work fulltime, and therefore, it is of great importance to accompany them in their return to work.

Exploring the concept inability to work fulltime in the context of work disability assessments: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In many countries inability to work fulltime is recognized as an important concept in work disability assessments. However, consensus is lacking regarding the concept and how it should be assessed. This study seeks to conceptualize and operationalize the concept of inability to work fulltime, and includes perspectives of both patients and physicians. Research questions involve identifying: 1. key elements, 2. measurable indicators, and 3. valid methods for assessing indicators of inability to work fulltime. METHODS: We used a qualitative study with a thematic content analysis design to conceptualize inability to work fulltime, based on nineteen semi-structured interviews conducted among insurance and occupational health physicians, and representatives of patient organizations. RESULTS: Inability to work fulltime is conceptualized as a complex concept which is strongly individually determined and variable due to time and underlying disease. Key dimensions of inability to work fulltime included besides the disease itself, also personal factors like psychological and lifestyle factors, as well as environmental factors related to the work situation and social context. Fatigue, cognitive impairments, and restrictions in functioning in- and outside work were reported as important measurable indicators. A combined use of self-assessment, assessment interviews, and testing, and assessment in the actual (work) setting was identified for assessing these indicators. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the complex and variable nature of inability to work fulltime, we found it advisable to use multiple methods and multiple time points for the assessment. Results of this study provide starting points for further research on the operationalization of inability to work fulltime in a work disability context.

Inability to Work Fulltime, Prevalence and Associated Factors Among Applicants for Work Disability Benefit.

Purpose Inability to work fulltime is an important outcome in the assessment of workers applying for a disability benefit. However, limited knowledge is available about the prevalence and degree of the inability to work fulltime, the associations between disease-related and socio-demographic factors with inability to work fulltime and whether the prevalence and the associations differ across disease groups. Methods Anonymized register data on assessments of workers with residual work capacity (n = 30,177, age 48.8 ± 11.0, 53.9% female) applying for a work disability benefit in 2016 were used. Inability to work fulltime was defined as being able to work less than 8 h per day. Results The prevalence of inability to work fulltime was 39.4%, of these 62.5% could work up to 4 h per day. Higher age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.01), female gender (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.37-1.52), higher education (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.33-1.55) and multimorbidity (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) showed higher odds for inability to work fulltime. Highest odds for inability to work fulltime were found for diseases of the blood, neoplasms and diseases of the respiratory system. Within specific disease groups, different associations were identified between disease-related and socio-demographic factors. Conclusion The prevalence and degree of inability to work fulltime in work disability benefit assessments is high. Specific chronic diseases are found to have higher odds for inability to work fulltime, and associated factors differ per disease group.

The assessment of work endurance in disability evaluations across European countries.

PURPOSE: Chronic disease is often associated with a reduced energy level, which limits the capacity to work full-time. This study aims to investigate whether the construct work endurance is part of disability assessment in European countries and what assessment procedures are used. We defined work endurance as the ability to sustain working activities for a number of hours per day and per week. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey using two self-constructed questionnaires. We addressed 35 experts from 19 countries through the European Union of Medicine in Assurance and Social Security (EUMASS). We gathered descriptive data on various aspects of (the assessment of) work endurance. RESULTS: Experts from 16 countries responded. In most countries work endurance is assessed. We found few professional guidelines specific for the assessment of work endurance. Both somatic and mental diseases may cause limited work endurance. Methods to assess work endurance vary, objective methods rating as most suitable. Almost half of the countries report controversies on the assessment of work endurance. CONCLUSIONS: Work endurance is recognised and assessed as an aspect of work disability assessment in Europe. However, controversies exist and evidence based guidelines, including reliable and valid methods to assess work endurance, are lacking.