Search

Abstract Background Decisions on disability pensions are based, among others, on medical reports. The way these medical assessments are performed is largely unclear. The aim of the study was to determine which grounds are used by social insurance physicians (SIPs) in these assessments and to determine if the identification of these grounds can help improve the quality of assessments in social insurance practice. The article describes a focus group study and a questionnaire study with SIPs in four different countries. Method Using focus group discussions of SIPs discussing the same case in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia (N = 29) we determined the arguments and underlying grounds as used by the SIP's. We used a questionnaire study among other SIPs (N = 60) in the same countries to establish a first validation of these grounds. Results Grounds in the focus groups were comparable between the countries studied. The grounds were also recognized by SIPs who had not participated in the focus groups. SIPs agreed most on grounds with regard to the claimant's health condition, and about the claimant's duty to explore rehabilitation and work resumption, but less on accepting permanent incapacity when all options for treatment were exhausted. Conclusion Grounds that SIPs use refer to a limited group of key elements of disability evaluation. SIPs interpret disability in social insurance according to the handicapped role and strive at making their evaluation fair trials. ICF is relevant with regard to the health condition and to the process of evaluation. Identification of grounds is a valuable instrument for controlling the quality of disability evaluation. The grounds also appear to be internationally comparable which may enhance scientific study in this area.

Background: To limit long-term sick leave and associated consequences, insurers, healthcare providers and employers provide programmes to facilitate disabled people's return to work. These programmes include a variety of coordinated and individualised interventions. Despite the increasing popularity of such programmes, their benefits remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of return-to-work coordination programmes compared to usual practice in workers at risk for long-term disability., Objectives: To assess the effects of return-to-work coordination programmes versus usual practice for workers on sick leave or disability., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 November 2016., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled workers absent from work for at least four weeks and randomly assigned them to return-to-work coordination programmes or usual practice., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias from eligible trials. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence., Main Results: We identified 14 studies from nine countries that enrolled 12,568 workers. Eleven studies focused on musculoskeletal problems, two on mental health and one on both. Most studies (11 of 14) followed workers 12 months or longer. Risk of bias was low in 10 and high in 4 studies, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.We found no benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on return-to-work outcomes.For short-term follow-up of six months, we found no effect on time to return to work (hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.88, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (mean difference (MD) -16.18 work days per year, 95% CI -32.42 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work, that is, regardless of whether they had remained at work until last follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19, very low-quality evidence).For long-term follow-up of 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD -14.84 work days per year, 95% CI -38.56 to 8.88, low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.15, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09, moderate-quality evidence).For very long-term follow-up of longer than 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD 7.00 work days per year, 95% CI -15.17 to 29.17, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02, low-quality evidence).We found only small benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on patient-reported outcomes. All differences were below the minimal clinically important difference (MID)., Authors' Conclusions: Offering return-to-work coordination programmes for workers on sick leave for at least four weeks results in no benefits when compared to usual practice. We found no significant differences for the outcomes time to return to work, cumulative sickness absence, the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up or the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work at short-term, long-term or very long-term follow-up. For patient-reported outcomes, we found only marginal effects below the MID. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate across all outcomes.

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.)

Questions Under Study: Studies from several countries (Scandinavia, United Kingdom) report that general practitioners (GPs) experience problems in sickness certification. Our study explored views of Swiss GPs towards sickness certification, their practice and experience, professional skills and problematic interactions with patients., Methods: We conducted an online survey among GPs throughout Switzerland, exploring behaviour of physicians, patients and employers with regard to sickness certification; GPs' views about sickness certification; required competences for certifying sickness absence, and approaches to advance their competence. We piloted the questionnaire and disseminated it through the networks of the five Swiss academic institutes for primary care., Results: We received 507 valid responses (response rate 50%). Only 43/507 GPs experienced sickness certification as problematic per se, yet 155/507 experienced problems in sickness certification at least once a week. The 507 GPs identified estimating a long-term prognosis about work capacity (64%), handling conflicts with patients (54%), and determining the reduction of work capacity (42%) as problematic. Over 75% would welcome special training opportunities, e.g., on sickness certifications during residency (93%), in insurance medicine (81%), and conflict management (80%)., Conclusion: Sickness certification as such does not present a major problem to Swiss GPs, which contrasts with the experience in Scandinavian countries and in the UK. Swiss GPs did identify specific tasks of sickness certification as problematic. Training opportunities on sick-leave certification and insurance medicine in general were welcomed.

Questions: In Switzerland, evaluation of work capacity in individuals with mental disorders has come under criticism. We surveyed stakeholders about their concerns and expectations of the current claim process., Methods: We conducted a nationwide online survey among five stakeholder groups. We asked 37 questions addressing the claim process and the evaluation of work capacity, the maximum acceptable disagreement in judgments on work capacity, and its documentation., Results: Response rate among 704 stakeholders (95 plaintiff lawyers, 285 treating psychiatrists, 129 expert psychiatrists evaluating work capacity, 64 social judges, 131 insurers) varied between 71% and 29%. Of the lawyers, 92% were dissatisfied with the current claim process, as were psychiatrists (73%) and experts (64%), whereas the majority of judges (72%) and insurers (81%) were satisfied. Stakeholders agreed in their concerns, such as the lack of a transparent relationship between the experts' findings and their conclusions regarding work capacity, medical evaluations inappropriately addressing legal issues, and the experts' delay in finalising the report. Findings mirror the characteristics that stakeholders consider important for an optimal work capacity evaluation. For a scenario where two experts evaluate the same claimant, stakeholders considered an inter-rater difference of 10%‒20% in work capacity at maximum acceptable., Conclusions: Plaintiff lawyers, treating psychiatrists and experts perceive major problems in work capacity evaluation of psychiatric claims whereas judges and insurers see the process more positively. Efforts to improve the process should include clarifying the basis on which judgments are made, restricting judgments to areas of expertise, and ensuring prompt submission of evaluations.

Questions Under Study: In Switzerland, psychiatric evaluations of work capacity for determining a person's eligibility for disability benefits are being criticised for a lack of transparency and high inter-rater variability. The aims of this study were to learn about the current practice of psychiatrists, to explore possible sources for lack of transparency and variability, and to contrast practice with current professional guidance., Methods: A national online-survey among psychiatrists who performed five or more evaluations of work capacity per year. Based on discussions with experts and a literature review, we structured questions focusing on reporting on work capacity, the description of a claimant's previous job, and measures of quality assurance., Results: A total of 129 psychiatrists responded (31% of estimated 412 eligible psychiatrists). The majority reported using instructions of the insurers (77%), peer consulting (65%) and process guidelines (51%). They expressed a claimant's work capacity as free text and percentage work capacity (49%), percentage only (23%), or free text only (14%). A total of 13% used instruments to document work capacity. Psychiatrists considered three different interpretations of percentage work capacity as equally applicable. A job description was regarded as mandatory to determine work capacity by 90% but only 26% received it and found it mostly deficient., Conclusions: The transparency and reliability of Swiss psychiatrists' conclusions on a claimant's work capacity may be reduced by unsystematic reporting, variable interpretation of the percentage work capacity, lack of a detailed job description and insufficient quality control. Education, engagement of insurers and new guidelines might be effective means of implementing improvements.

Background: Medical work capacity evaluations play a key role in social security schemes because they usually form the basis for eligibility decisions regarding disability benefits. However, the evaluations are often poorly standardized and lack transparency as decisions on work capacity are based on a claimant's disease rather than on his or her functional capacity. A comprehensive and consistent illustration of a claimant's lived experience in relation to functioning, applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the ICF Core Sets (ICF-CS), potentially enhances transparency and standardization of work capacity evaluations. In our study we wanted to establish whether and how the relevant content of work capacity evaluations can be captured by ICF-CS, using disability claimants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) and low back pain (LBP) as examples., Methods: Mixed methods study, involving a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of medical reports. The ICF was used for data coding. The coded categories were ranked according to the percentage of reports in which they were addressed. Relevance thresholds at 25% and 50% were applied. To determine the extent to which the categories above the thresholds are represented by applicable ICF-CS or combinations thereof, measures of the ICF-CS' degree of coverage (i.e. content validity) and efficiency (i.e. practicability) were defined., Results: Focusing on the 25% threshold and combining the Brief ICF-CS for CWP, LBP and depression for CWP reports, the coverage ratio reached 49% and the efficiency ratio 70%. Combining the Brief ICF-CS for LBP, CWP and obesity for LBP reports led to a coverage of 47% and an efficiency of 78%., Conclusions: The relevant content of work capacity evaluations involving CWP and LBP can be represented by a combination of applicable ICF-CS. A suitable standard for documenting such evaluations could consist of the Brief ICF-CS for CWP, LBP, and depression or obesity, augmented by additional ICF categories relevant for this particular context. In addition, the unique individual experiences of claimants have to be considered in order to assess work capacity comprehensively.

Background: Efforts undertaken during the return to work (RTW) process need to be sufficient to prevent unnecessary applications for disability benefits. The purpose of this study was to identify factors relevant to RTW Effort Sufficiency (RTW-ES) in cases of sick-listed employees with chronic low back pain (CLBP)., Methods: Using focus groups consisting of Labor Experts (LE's) working at the Dutch Social Insurance Institute, arguments and underlying grounds relevant to the assessment of RTW-ES were investigated. Factors were collected and categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF model)., Results: Two focus groups yielded 19 factors, of which 12 are categorized in the ICF model under activities (e.g. functional capacity) and in the personal (e.g. age, tenure) and environmental domain (e.g. employer-employee relationship). The remaining 7 factors are categorized under intervention, job accommodation and measures., Conclusions: This focus group study shows that 19 factors may be relevant to RTW-ES in sick-listed employees with CLBP. Providing these results to professionals assessing RTW-ES might contribute to a more transparent and systematic approach. Considering the importance of the quality of the RTW process, optimizing the RTW-ES assessment is essential.

Background: The dramatic rise in chronically ill patients on permanent disability benefits threatens the sustainability of social security in high-income countries. Social insurance organizations have started to invest in promising, but costly return to work (RTW) coordination programmes. The benefit, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of RTW coordination compared to usual practice in patients at risk for long-term disability., Methods and Findings: Eligible trials enrolled employees on work absence for at least 4 weeks and randomly assigned them to RTW coordination or to usual practice. We searched 5 databases (to April 2, 2012). Two investigators performed standardised eligibility assessment, study appraisal and data extraction independently and in duplicate. The GRADE framework guided our assessment of confidence in the meta-analytic estimates. We identified 9 trials from 7 countries, 8 focusing on musculoskeletal, and 1 on mental complaints. Most trials followed participants for 12 months or less. No trial assessed permanent disability. Moderate quality evidence suggests a benefit of RTW coordination on proportion at work at end of follow-up (risk ratio = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.13; absolute effect = 5 in 100 additional individuals returning to work, 95% CI = 2 to 8), overall function (mean difference [MD] on a 0 to 100 scale = 5.2, 95% CI = 2.4 to 8.0; minimal important difference [MID] = 10), physical function (MD = 5.3, 95% CI = 1.4 to 9.1; MID = 8.4), mental function (MD = 3.1, 95% CI = 0.7 to 5.6; MID = 7.3) and pain (MD = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.1 to 9.2; MID = 10)., Conclusions: Moderate quality evidence suggests that RTW coordination results in small relative, but likely important absolute benefits in the likelihood of disabled or sick-listed patients returning to work, and associated small improvements in function and pain. Future research should explore whether the limited effects persist, and whether the programmes are cost effective in the long term.

Background: Physicians require specific communication skills, because the face-to-face contact with their patients is an important source of information. Although physicians who perform work disability assessments attend some communication-related training courses during their professional education, no specialised and evidence-based communication skills training course is available for them. Therefore, the objectives of this study were: 1) to systematically develop a training course aimed at improving the communication skills of physicians during work disability assessment interviews with disability claimants, and 2) to plan an evaluation of the training course., Methods: A physician-tailored communication skills training course was developed, according to the six steps of the Intervention Mapping protocol. Data were collected from questionnaire studies among physicians and claimants, a focus group study among physicians, a systematic review of the literature, and meetings with various experts. Determinants and performance objectives were formulated. A concept version of the training course was discussed with several experts before the final training course programme was established. The evaluation plan was developed by consulting experts, social insurance physicians, researchers, and policy-makers, and discussing with them the options for evaluation., Results: A two-day post-graduate communication skills training course was developed, aimed at improving professional communication during work disability assessment interviews. Special focus was on active teaching strategies, such as practising the skills in role-play. An adoption and implementation plan was formulated, in which the infrastructure of the educational department of the institute that employs the physicians was utilised. Improvement in the skills and knowledge of the physicians who will participate in the training course will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial., Conclusions: The feasibility and practical relevance of the communication skills training course that was developed seem promising. Such a course may be relevant for physicians in many countries who perform work disability assessments. The development of the first training course of this type represents an important advancement in this field.

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.

Background: In social insurance, the evaluation of work disability is becoming stricter as priority is given to the resumption of work, which calls for a guarantee of quality for these evaluations. Evidence-based guidelines have become a major instrument in the quality control of health care, and the quality of these guidelines' development can be assessed using the AGREE instrument. In social insurance medicine, such guidelines are relatively new. We were interested to know what guidelines have been developed to support the medical evaluation of work disability and the quality of these guidelines., Methods: Five European countries that were reported to use guidelines were approached, using a recent inventory of evaluations of work disability in Europe. We focused on guidelines that are disease-oriented and formally prescribed in social insurance medicine. Using the AGREE instrument, these guidelines were appraised by two researchers. We asked two experts involved in guideline development to indicate if they agreed with our results and to provide explanations for insufficient scores., Results: We found six German and sixteen Dutch sets of disease-oriented guidelines in official use. The AGREE instrument was applicable, requiring minor adaptations. The appraisers reached consensus on all items. Each guideline scored well on 'scope and purpose' and 'clarity and presentation'. The guidelines scored moderately on 'stakeholder involvement' in the Netherlands, but insufficiently in Germany, due mainly to the limited involvement of patients' representatives in this country. All guidelines had low scores on 'rigour of development', which was due partly to a lack of documentation and of existing evidence. 'Editorial independence' and 'applicability' had low scores in both countries as a result of how the production was organised., Conclusion: Disease-oriented guidelines in social insurance medicine for the evaluation of work disability are a recent phenomenon, so far restricted to Germany and the Netherlands. The AGREE instrument is suitably applicable to assess the quality of guideline development in social insurance medicine, but some of the scoring rules need to be adapted to the context of social insurance. Existing guidelines do not meet the AGREE criteria to a sufficient level. The way patients' representatives can be involved needs further discussion. The guidelines would profit from more specific recommendations and, for providing evidence, more research is needed on the functional capacity of people with disabilities.

Background: Assessments for long-term incapacity for work are performed by Social Insurance Physicians (SIPs) who rely on interviews with claimants as an important part of the process. These interviews are susceptible to bias. In the Netherlands three protocols have been developed to conduct these interviews. These protocols are expert- and practice-based. We studied to what extent these protocols are adhered to by practitioners., Methods: We compared the protocols with one another and with the ICF and the biopsychosocial approach. The protocols describe semi-structured interviews with comparable but not identical topics. All protocols prescribe that the client's opinion on his capacity for work, and his arguments, need to be determined and assessed. We developed a questionnaire to elicit the adherence SIPs have to the protocols, their underlying principles and topics. We conducted a survey among one hundred fifty-five experienced SIPs in the Netherlands., Results: Ninety-eight SIPs responded (64%). All respondents used some form of protocol, either one of the published protocols or their own mix. We found no significant relation between training and the use of a particular protocol. Ninety percent use a semi-structured interview. Ninety-five percent recognise having to verify what the claimant says and eighty-three percent feel the need to establish a good relation (p = 0.019). Twelve topics are basically always addressed by over eighty percent of the respondents. The claimant's opinion of being fit for his own work or other work, and his claim of incapacity and his health arguments for that claim, reach a hundred percent. Description of claimants' previous work reaches ninety-nine percent., Conclusion: Our study shows professional consensus among experienced Dutch SIPs about the principle of assessment on arguments, the principle of conducting a semi-structured interview and the most crucial interview topics. This consensus can be used to further develop a protocol for interviewing in the assessment of incapacity for work in social insurance. Such a protocol can improve the quality of the assessments in terms of transparency and reproducibility, as well as by enabling clients to better prepare themselves for the assessments.