...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of occupational rehabilitation >Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study.
【24h】

Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study.

机译:慢性职业性背痛后,能否解释跨国在重返工作中的差异?一项针对六个国家的队列研究中的残疾政策探索性分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

INTRODUCTION: There are substantial differences in the number of disability benefits for occupational low back pain (LBP) among countries. There are also large cross country differences in disability policies. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) there are two principal policy approaches: countries which have an emphasis on a compensation policy approach or countries with an emphasis on an reintegration policy approach. The International Social Security Association initiated this study to explain differences in return-to-work (RTW) among claimants with long term sick leave due to LBP between countries with a special focus on the effect of different disability policies. METHODS: A multinational cohort of 2,825 compensation claimants off work for 3-4 months due to LBP was recruited in Denmark, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States. Relevant predictors and interventions were measured at 3 months, one and 2 years after the start of sick leave. The main outcome measure was duration until sustainable RTW (i.e. working after 2 years). Multivariate analyses were conducted to explain differences in sustainable RTW between countries and to explore the effect of different disability policies. RESULTS: Medical and work interventions varied considerably between countries. Sustainable RTW ranged from 22% in the German cohort up to 62% in the Dutch cohort after 2 years of follow-up. Work interventions and job characteristics contributed most to these differences. Patient health, medical interventions and patient characteristics were less important. In addition, cross-country differences in eligibility criteria for entitlement to long-term and/or partial disability benefits contributed to the observed differences in sustainable RTW rates: less strict criteria are more effective. The model including various compensation policy variables explained 48% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: Large cross-country differences in sustainable RTW after chronic LBP are mainly explained by cross-country differences in applied work interventions. Differences in eligibility criteria for long term disability benefits contributed also to the differences in RTW. This study supports OECD policy recommendations: Individual packages of work interventions and flexible (partial) disability benefits adapted to the individual needs and capacities are important for preventing work disability due to LBP.
机译:简介:各国之间因职业性下背痛(LBP)所致的残疾津贴数量存在实质性差异。残疾政策在不同国家之间也存在很大差异。根据经济合作与发展组织(OECD)的说法,有两种主要的政策方法:强调补偿政策方法的国家或强调重返社会政策方法的国家。国际社会保障协会发起了这项研究,以解释国家之间因LBP而长期休病假的索赔人之间的重返工作(RTW)的差异,并特别关注不同的残疾政策的影响。方法:在丹麦,德国,以色列,荷兰,瑞典和美国招募了多民族队列,其中有2825名因LBP而停工3-4个月的赔偿索赔人。在病假开始后的3个月,1年和2年测量相关的预测因素和干预措施。主要结果指标是持续的RTW持续时间(即2年后工作)。进行了多变量分析,以解释各国之间在可持续RTW方面的差异,并探讨不同残疾政策的影响。结果:各国的医疗和工作干预措施差异很大。经过2年的随访,可持续的RTW范围从德国队列的22%到荷兰队列的62%。工作干预和工作特征是造成这些差异的主要原因。病人的健康状况,医疗干预和病人的特征不太重要。此外,在获得长期和/或部分残障津贴的资格标准方面,跨国差异导致了观察到的可持续RTW费率差异:严格的标准更为有效。包含各种补偿政策变量的模型解释了48%的方差。结论:慢性LBP后可持续RTW的跨国差异主要由应用工作干预中的跨国差异解释。长期残疾津贴资格标准的差异也造成了RTW差异。这项研究支持经合组织的政策建议:适应个人需求和能力的一揽子工作干预措施和灵活的(部分)残疾福利对于防止因LBP造成的工作残疾至关重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号