Search

Background: Certifying physicians play a key role in the management of sickness absence and are often provided with guidelines. Some of these guidelines contain statements on expected sickness absence duration, according to diagnosis. We were interested in exploring the evidence base of these statements., Methods: We identified guidelines through a survey of EUMASS members and a literature search of the Internet and PubMed. We extracted the statements and methods from the guidelines. We compared: diagnoses that were addressed, expected durations and development processes followed. Next, we presented our findings to the developers, to afford them an opportunity to comment and/or correct any misinterpretations., Results: We identified 4 guidelines from social insurance institutions (France, Serbia, Spain and Sweden) and 4 guidelines from private organisations (1 Netherlands, 3 US). Guidelines addressed between 63 and some 63000 health conditions (ICD 10 codes). Health conditions overlapped among guidelines. Direct comparison is hampered by differences in coding (ICD 9 or 10) and level of aggregation (three or four digit, clustering of diseases and treatment situations). Expectations about duration are defined as minimum, maximum, and optimum or mean or median and percentile distribution, stratified to age and work requirements. In a sample of 5 diagnoses we found overlap in expected duration but also differences. Guidelines are developed differently, pragmatic expert consensus being used most, supplemented with data on sickness absence from different registers, other guidelines and non-systematic literature reviews. The effectiveness of these guidelines has not yet been formally evaluated., Conclusions: Expectations about duration of sickness absence by diagnosis are expressed in several guidelines. The expectations are difficult to compare, their evidence base is unclear and their effectiveness needs to be established., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Background: Assessment of efforts to promote return-to-work (RTW) includes all efforts (vocational and non-vocational) designed to improve the work ability of the sick-listed employee and increase the chance to return to work. Aim of the study was to investigate whether in 13 European countries these RTW efforts are assessed and to compare the procedures by means of six criteria., Methods: Data were gathered in the taxonomy project of the European Union of Medicine in Assurance and Social Security and by means of an additional questionnaire., Results: In seven countries RTW efforts are subject of the assessment in relation to the application for disability benefits. Description of RTW efforts is a prerequisite in five countries. Guidelines on the assessment of RTW efforts are only available in the Netherlands and no countries report the use of the ICF model. Based on the results of the additional questionnaire, the assessor is a social scientist or a physician. The information used to assess RTW efforts differs, from a report on the RTW process to medical information. A negative outcome of the assessment leads to delay of the application for disability benefits or to application for rehabilitation subsidy., Conclusion: RTW efforts are assessed in half of the participating European countries. When compared, the characteristics of the assessment of RTW efforts in the participating European countries show both similarities and differences. This study may facilitate the gathering and exchange of knowledge and experience between countries on the assessment of RTW efforts.