Search

Objective: To perform a content validation of the EUMASS Core Set across six European social insurance systems. The EUMASS Core Set contains 20 categories to describe the functional (in-) capacity of claimants for disability benefits., Methods: We performed an exploratory, cross-sectional study. We used the EUMASS Core Set, added scales to rate the relevance of the 20 categories and added additional questions concerning comprehensiveness, usefulness and sufficiency of the instrument. Medical examiners from European countries filled in this instrument in 10 consecutive claim assessments., Results: Forty-eight medical examiners in six different countries evaluated 446 claimants. The medical examiners used all categories to describe the claimants' functional (in-) capacity. Medical examiners missed 41 different categories, often mental functions (n = 17). They rated the instrument as useful in 68.4% and as sufficient in 63.2% of the claims. Perceived usefulness varied among countries, but not among disease groups. Perceived sufficiency varied among countries and disease groups., Conclusion: The EUMASS Core Set is promising for reporting about functional (in-) capacities. It contains relevant categories for disability evaluation among countries and disease groups. Adding more mental functions might make it more applicable. Medical examiners found it useful and sufficient to evaluate functional (in-) capacity. Implications for Rehabilitation In medical reports of evaluation of work disability, reporting about functional capacity is often unstructured in free text, making the reports difficult to understand. The EUMASS Core Set contains common definitions for expressing functional capacity and is expected to support taking decisions, to improve the quality of decisions and to allow national and international comparisons. Our study suggests the EUMASS core set to be comprehensive, useful and sufficient to express functional capacity in disability evaluation.

Purpose: To what extent response mode and experience affect the assessment of disability was investigated., Method: An experiment was conducted in which 34 medical doctors (17 inexperienced and 15 experienced) were required to assess disability of a videotaped client. Participants either gave a probability assessment after each piece of information or only after all information had been processed (step-by-step, SBS, or end-of-sequence, EOS). They were furthermore required to indicate how confident they were of their judgement and which information was most important for their judgement., Results: Neither response mode nor experience affected the assessment of disability. Only experienced doctors changed their judgement after seeing the video as compared to their judgement after reading the file. Even though all doctors became more confident after seeing the video, this increase was stronger for experienced than inexperienced doctors. Experienced doctors more often mentioned limitations as the basis for their judgements and, to a lesser degree, client's motivation to return to work than inexperienced doctors., Conclusions: The results suggest that assessments of disability are largely based on the initial representation that is formed after reading the file. The main pitfall is that the final representation is based on general beliefs rather than on actual client information. For training and support this would mean that doctors should be made aware of the extent to which their assessment is anchored in the case at hand.