Reporting about disability evaluation in European countries

Anner, Jessica; Kunz, Regina; Boer, Wout de

doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.821180

Cited by 30 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The United Kingdom vividly illustrates these challenges. While various researchers have spoken positively about the United Kingdom's systematic functional assessment in principle [2,17,18], this work capacity assessment (WCA) has been classed as one of the leading recent "blunders of our governments" in practice [19]. This is because the assessment is both inaccuratedespite its name, it does not directly assess claimants' capacity to workand has considerable implications for claimants, with the assessment governing financial payments, and the threat of sanctions [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing work disability for social security benefits: international models for the direct assessment of work capacity

Geiger

Garthwaite

Warren

et al. 2017

Disability and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct disability assessment within social security is not just theoretically desirable, but can be implemented in practice. We have shown that there are three distinct ways that this can be done, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Further research is needed to clarify the costs, validity/legitimacy, and consequences of these different models. Implications for rehabilitation It has recently been argued that social security disability assessments should directly assess work capacity rather than simply assessing functioning - but we have no understanding about how this can be done in practice. Based on case studies of nine countries, we show that direct disability assessment can be implemented, and argue that there are three different ways of doing it. These are "demonstrated assessment" (using claimants' experiences in the labour market), "structured assessment" (matching functional requirements to workplace demands), and "expert assessment" (the judgement of skilled professionals). While it is possible to implement a direct assessment of work capacity for social security benefits, further research is necessary to understand how best to maximise validity, legitimacy, and cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing work disability for social security benefits: international models for the direct assessment of work capacity

Geiger

Garthwaite

Warren

et al. 2017

Disability and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IMEs conducted by independent health professionals are routinely used by both public and private health insurance systems throughout the Western world to determine the functional capacity of workers who claim inability to work because of illness or injury [7–9]. However, experts assessing the same claimants often disagree regarding the ability to work [10–12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences

Aamland

Husabø

Mæland

2018

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNorwegian general practitioners (GPs) are important stakeholders because they manage 80% of people on long-term sick-leave. Independent medical evaluation (IME) for long-term sick-listed patients is being evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial in one county in Norway in an effort to lower the national sick-leave rate (the NIME trial: Effect Evaluation of IME in Norway). The aim of the current study was to explore GPs’ expectations of and experiences with IMEs.MethodsWe conducted three focus group interviews with a convenience sample of 14 GPs who had had 2–9 (mean 5) of their long-term sick-listed patients summoned to an IME. We asked them to recollect and describe their concrete expectations of and experiences with patients assigned to an IME. Systematic text condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis, was applied for analysis.ResultsTo care for and to reassure their assigned sick-listed patients, the participants had spent time and applied different strategies before their patients had attended an IME. The participants welcomed a second opinion from an experienced GP colleague as a way of obtaining constructive advice for further sick-leave measures and/or medical advice. However, they mainly described the IME reports in negative terms, as these were either too categorical or provided unusable advice for further follow-up of their sick-listed patients. The participants did not agree with the proposed routine use of IMEs but instead suggested that GPs should be able to select particularly challenging sick-listed patients for an IME, which should be performed by a peer.ConclusionOur participants showed positive attitudes towards second opinions but found the regular IMEs to be unsuitable. The participants did however welcome IMEs if they themselves could select particularly challenging patients for a mandatory second opinion by a peer but emphasized that IME-doctors should not be able to overrule a GP’s sick-leave recommendation. These findings, together with other evaluations, will serve as a basis for the Norwegian government’s decision on whether or not to implement IMEs for long-term sick-listed patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524392. Registered 23 June, 2015.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3481-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The process of deciding on a claimant’s eligibility for a work disability benefit varies between countries, but what usually plays a crucial role in the assessment is the underlying cause of the complaints and the interpretation of limitations to work-related functioning [ 16 , 17 ]. For the interpretation of limitations to work-related functioning, physicians have to translate medical findings and complaints to functional abilities and work disabilities [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the interpretation of limitations to work-related functioning, physicians have to translate medical findings and complaints to functional abilities and work disabilities [ 18 , 19 ]. The outcome of such work disability assessments is not only essential for the eligibility of a work disability benefit, but also for the advice physicians give about recovery and participation opportunities, long-term prognosis, and treatment options [ 17 , 20 ]. As differences in advice may form an unnecessary obstacle in the recovery and return-to-work process [ 12 , 21 ], it is important there is agreement on the limitations to work-related functioning between physicians in various settings, such as insurance medicine, occupational medicine and curative health care [ 22 , 23 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitations to Work-Related Functioning of People with Persistent “Medically Unexplained” Physical Symptoms: A Modified Delphi Study Among Physicians

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study was to obtain consensus among physicians of several medical specialties on the level of limitations to work-related functioning of people with persistent “medically unexplained” physical symptoms (PPS). Methods A modified Delphi study was conducted with 15 physicians of five different medical specialties. The study involved two email rounds and one meeting. In each round, the physicians prioritized the level of limitations in 78 work-related functioning items for four different PPS cases. These items were based on the Dutch Functional Ability List, national guidelines and scientific literature regarding the International Classification of Functioning. Results In all four cases, the physicians reached consensus on the level of limitations to work-related functioning in 49 items. The physicians reported the highest number and level of limitations for PPS of the back and lower extremities, but they reported hardly any limitations for PPS of the abdomen and genitals. For PPS of the head, they reported mainly limitations to personal and social functioning; for PPS of the neck, back and upper or lower extremities, they reported mainly limitations to dynamic movements and static postures. The physicians could not reach consensus on limitations in the category of working hours. Conclusion Physicians reached consensus on the level of limitations in a substantial part of work-related functioning items for PPS. There was a difference in the number and severity of limitations between different cases of PPS. The assessment of functioning seems to be based more on the specific impairment than on the disease.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9674-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Reporting about disability evaluation in European countries

Cited by 30 publications

References 15 publications

Assessing work disability for social security benefits: international models for the direct assessment of work capacity

Assessing work disability for social security benefits: international models for the direct assessment of work capacity

Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences

Limitations to Work-Related Functioning of People with Persistent “Medically Unexplained” Physical Symptoms: A Modified Delphi Study Among Physicians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About