Search

Abstract Background Research in high-income countries has identified low socioeconomic status as a risk factor for disability pension (DP) due to common mental disorders (CMDs). Psychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment for the majority of CMDs along with medication and it is often targeted to prevent work disability. This study examines socioeconomic differences in the use of rehabilitative psychotherapy in Finland, where citizens have universal health coverage, but psychotherapy is partly dependent on personal finance. Methods The study subjects (N = 22,501) were all the Finnish citizens granted a DP due to CMD between 2010 and 2015 and a comparison group (N = 57,732) matched based on age, gender, and hospital district. Socioeconomic differences in psychotherapy use were studied using logistic regression models. Socioeconomic status was defined by education, income, and occupation. Age, gender, and family status were also examined. Results A lower level of education, lower occupational status (blue-collar worker), male gender, and older age, were associated with less frequent psychotherapy use, in both groups. Education was the strongest component of socioeconomic status associated with psychotherapy use, but the role of income was not straightforward. Unemployment when approaching DP, but not otherwise, was a risk factor for not receiving rehabilitative psychotherapy. Socioeconomic disparities were not any smaller among CMD patients approaching DP than in the comparison group. Conclusion This study demonstrates the disparity in the provision of psychotherapy for CMD patients, even on the verge of DP with an acute need for services. This disparity is partly related to a complex interplay of socioeconomic factors and the service system characteristics. Factors predisposing to unequal access to mental health services are presumably diverse and should be studied further.

Abstract Background German social law offers services from various providers and agencies for people with chronic disease or disability. Claiming services requires a high level of information and communication. Dealing with a multitude of actors, such as pension insurance agencies, job centers, employers, physicians, and psychotherapists, and coordinating between and with these actors can delay or prevent the utilization of necessary measures like medical or vocational rehabilitation. We developed a case management intervention for people at high risk of receiving a disability pension to address these challenges. Methods/design Our randomized controlled trial tests the effectiveness of the multi-component AktiFAME strategy (Active access, counseling, and case management for people at high risk of permanent work disability). This strategy is comprised of four modules: screening and postal contact, telephone counseling, an initial one-on-one interview, and case management. The randomized controlled trial is complemented by an observational study that exclusively involves the individuals participating in case management and accompanies the implementation of the case management intervention. We enroll 9000 individuals aged 18 to 65 years who were identified as being at increased risk for receiving a disability pension based on administrative data from the German Pension Insurance North but who have not yet applied for rehabilitation. Half of the individuals are randomly assigned to the intervention group and the other half to the control group. The intervention group is contacted and informed about a case management intervention, whereas the control group is not. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial is the utilization of rehabilitation services from the German Pension Insurance North (medical or vocational rehabilitation). Data on rehabilitation will be provided by the German Pension Insurance North 1 year after random allocation. Secondary and tertiary outcomes cover additional administrative data (e.g., employment and welfare benefits) and a range of patient-reported outcome measures. Discussion This randomized controlled trial is designed to determine the effectiveness of a newly implemented multi-component strategy to promote participation and rehabilitation coverage among individuals at high risk of receiving a disability pension. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00024648, April 27, 2021).

Abstract Background We investigated the regional differences in all mental disorder disability pensions (DP) between 2010 and 2015 in Finland, and separately in mood disorders and non-affective psychotic disorder DP. We also studied the contribution of several district-level contextual and mental health service factors to mental disorder DP. Methods Subjects were all those granted mental disorder DP for the first time between 2010 and 2015 in Finland (N = 36,879). Associations between the district-level contextual and mental health service factors and regional DP risks collected from the year 2015 were studied with negative binomial regression analysis in the Finnish hospital districts. The population number on the age (18 to 65 years), gender, occupational status and residential hospital district of the Finnish population from 2015 was used as exposure in the model. Results Significant differences in the regional mental disorder DP risks between and within hospital districts did not appear to follow the traditional Finnish health differences. A lower risk of DP was associated with contextual indicators of higher regional socioeconomic level. Furthermore, population density as a proxy for access to mental health services indicated a higher regional DP risk for lower density in all mental (IRR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06–1.14) and mood disorder (IRR 1.12; 95% CI 1.08–1.16) DP. Both the highest and the lowest regional numbers of all mental health outpatient visits were associated with a higher DP risk in all mental and mood disorder DP, whereas particularly low regional numbers of inpatient treatment periods and of patients were associated with a lower risk of DP. Conclusions In this comprehensive population-level study, we found evidence of significant regional variation in mental disorder DP and related district-level factors. This variation may at least partly relate to differences in regional mental health service systems and treatment practices. Adapting to the needs of the local population appears to be indicated for both regional mental health service systems and treatment practices to achieve optimal performance.

Background: Research in high-income countries has identified low socioeconomic status as a risk factor for disability pension (DP) due to common mental disorders (CMDs). Psychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment for the majority of CMDs along with medication and it is often targeted to prevent work disability. This study examines socioeconomic differences in the use of rehabilitative psychotherapy in Finland, where citizens have universal health coverage, but psychotherapy is partly dependent on personal finance.Methods: The study subjects (N = 22,501) were all the Finnish citizens granted a DP due to CMD between 2010 and 2015 and a comparison group (N = 57,732) matched based on age, gender, and hospital district. Socioeconomic differences in psychotherapy use were studied using logistic regression models. Socioeconomic status was defined by education, income, and occupation. Age, gender, and family status were also examined.Results: A lower level of education, lower occupational status (blue-collar worker), male gender, and older age, were associated with less frequent psychotherapy use, in both groups. Education was the strongest component of socioeconomic status associated with psychotherapy use, but the role of income was not straightforward. Unemployment when approaching DP, but not otherwise, was a risk factor for not receiving rehabilitative psychotherapy. Socioeconomic disparities were not any smaller among CMD patients approaching DP than in the comparison group.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the disparity in the provision of psychotherapy for CMD patients, even on the verge of DP with an acute need for services. This disparity is partly related to a complex interplay of socioeconomic factors and the service system characteristics. Factors predisposing to unequal access to mental health services are presumably diverse and should be studied further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: German social law offers services from various providers and agencies for people with chronic disease or disability. Claiming services requires a high level of information and communication. Dealing with a multitude of actors, such as pension insurance agencies, job centers, employers, physicians, and psychotherapists, and coordinating between and with these actors can delay or prevent the utilization of necessary measures like medical or vocational rehabilitation. We developed a case management intervention for people at high risk of receiving a disability pension to address these challenges.Methods/design: Our randomized controlled trial tests the effectiveness of the multi-component AktiFAME strategy (Active access, counseling, and case management for people at high risk of permanent work disability). This strategy is comprised of four modules: screening and postal contact, telephone counseling, an initial one-on-one interview, and case management. The randomized controlled trial is complemented by an observational study that exclusively involves the individuals participating in case management and accompanies the implementation of the case management intervention. We enroll 9000 individuals aged 18 to 65 years who were identified as being at increased risk for receiving a disability pension based on administrative data from the German Pension Insurance North but who have not yet applied for rehabilitation. Half of the individuals are randomly assigned to the intervention group and the other half to the control group. The intervention group is contacted and informed about a case management intervention, whereas the control group is not. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial is the utilization of rehabilitation services from the German Pension Insurance North (medical or vocational rehabilitation). Data on rehabilitation will be provided by the German Pension Insurance North 1 year after random allocation. Secondary and tertiary outcomes cover additional administrative data (e.g., employment and welfare benefits) and a range of patient-reported outcome measures.Discussion: This randomized controlled trial is designed to determine the effectiveness of a newly implemented multi-component strategy to promote participation and rehabilitation coverage among individuals at high risk of receiving a disability pension.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00024648, April 27, 2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We investigated the regional differences in all mental disorder disability pensions (DP) between 2010 and 2015 in Finland, and separately in mood disorders and non-affective psychotic disorder DP. We also studied the contribution of several district-level contextual and mental health service factors to mental disorder DP.Methods: Subjects were all those granted mental disorder DP for the first time between 2010 and 2015 in Finland (N = 36,879). Associations between the district-level contextual and mental health service factors and regional DP risks collected from the year 2015 were studied with negative binomial regression analysis in the Finnish hospital districts. The population number on the age (18 to 65 years), gender, occupational status and residential hospital district of the Finnish population from 2015 was used as exposure in the model.Results: Significant differences in the regional mental disorder DP risks between and within hospital districts did not appear to follow the traditional Finnish health differences. A lower risk of DP was associated with contextual indicators of higher regional socioeconomic level. Furthermore, population density as a proxy for access to mental health services indicated a higher regional DP risk for lower density in all mental (IRR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.14) and mood disorder (IRR 1.12; 95% CI 1.08-1.16) DP. Both the highest and the lowest regional numbers of all mental health outpatient visits were associated with a higher DP risk in all mental and mood disorder DP, whereas particularly low regional numbers of inpatient treatment periods and of patients were associated with a lower risk of DP.Conclusions: In this comprehensive population-level study, we found evidence of significant regional variation in mental disorder DP and related district-level factors. This variation may at least partly relate to differences in regional mental health service systems and treatment practices. Adapting to the needs of the local population appears to be indicated for both regional mental health service systems and treatment practices to achieve optimal performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The decision to grant a disability pension is usually the end of a long process of medical examinations, treatment and rehabilitation attempts. This study investigates to what extent the time spent on rehabilitation time prior to disability pension is associated with characteristics of the individual or the local employment and welfare office, measured as municipality variance. Methods: A study of 2,533 40 to 42 year olds who received disability pension over a period of 18 years. The logarithm of the rehabilitation time before granting a disability pension was analysed with multilevel regression. Results: The rehabilitation time before a disability pension was granted ranged from 30 to 5,508 days. Baseline health characteristics were only moderately associated with rehabilitation time. Younger people and people with unemployment periods had longer rehabilitation time before a disability pension was granted. There were only minor differences in rehabilitation time between men and women and between different levels of education. Approximately 2% of the total variance in rehabilitation time could be attributed to the municipality of residence. Conclusions: There is a higher threshold for granting a disability pension to younger persons and those who are expecting periods of unemployment, which is reflected in the extended rehabilitation requirements for these groups. The longer rehabilitation period for persons with psychiatric disorders might reflect a lack of common knowledge on the working capacity of and the fitted rehabilitation programs for people with psychiatric disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]