23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Employment status and perceived health in the Hordaland Health Study (HUSK)

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Most western countries have disability benefit schemes ostensibly based upon requiring (1) a work inhibiting functional limitation that (2) can be attributed to a diagnosable condition, injury or disease. The present paper examines to what extent current practice matches the core premises of this model by examining how much poorer the perceived health of disability benefit recipients is, compared to the employed and the unemployed, and further to examine to what extent any poorer perceived health among benefit recipients can be attributed to mental or somatic illness and symptoms.

          Methods

          Information on disability benefit recipiency was obtained from Norwegian registry data, and merged with health information from the Hordaland Health Study (HUSK) in Western Norway, 1997–99. Participants (N = 14 946) aged 40–47 were assessed for perceived physical and mental health (Short Form-12), somatic symptoms, mental health, and self reported somatic conditions and diseases treated with medication. Differences associated with employment status were tested in chi-square and t-tests, as well as multivariate and univariate regression models to adjust for potential confounders.

          Results

          Recipients of disability benefits (n = 1 351) had poorer perceived physical and mental health than employees (n = 13 156); group differences were 1.86 and 0.74 pooled standard deviations respectively. Self reported somatic diagnoses, mental health and symptoms accounted for very little of this difference in perceived health. The unemployed (n = 439) were comparable to the employed rather than the recipients of disability benefits.

          Conclusion

          Recipients of disability benefits have poor perceived health compared to both the employed and the unemployed. Surprisingly little of this difference can be ascribed to respondents' descriptions of their illnesses and symptoms. Even allowing for potential underascertainment of condition severity, this finding supports the increasing focus on non-disease oriented contributing factors. Rehabilitation efforts aiming at return to work should have a strong focus on the patients' perceptions of their health in addition to symptom relief and social factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The hospital anxiety and depression rating scale: A cross-sectional study of psychometrics and case finding abilities in general practice

          Background General practitioners' (GPs) diagnostic skills lead to underidentification of generalized anxiety disorders (GAD) and major depressive episodes (MDE). Supplement of brief questionnaires could improve the diagnostic accuracy of GPs for these common mental disorders. The aims of this study were to examine the usefulness of The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Rating Scale (HADS) for GPs by: 1) Examining its psychometrics in the GPs' setting; 2) Testing its case-finding properties compared to patient-rated GAD and MDE (DSM-IV); and 3) Comparing its case finding abilities to that of the GPs using Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) rating. Methods In a cross-sectional survey study 1,781 patients in three consecutive days in September 2001 attended 141 GPs geographically spread in Norway. Sensitivity, specificity, optimal cut off score, and Area under the curve (AUC) for the HADS and the CGI-S were calculated with Generalized Anxiety Questionnaire (GAS-Q) as reference standard for GAD, and Depression Screening Questionnaire (DSQ) for MDE. Results The HADS-A had optimal cut off ≥8 (sensitivity 0.89, specificity 0.75), AUC 0.88 and 76% of patients were correctly classified in relation to GAD. The HADS-D had by optimal cut off ≥8 (sensitivity 0.80 and specificity 0.88) AUC 0.93 and 87% of the patients were correctly classified in relation to MDE. Proportions of the total correctly classified at the CGI-S optimal cut-off ≥3 were 83% of patients for GAD and 81% for MDE. Conclusion The results indicate that addition of the patients' HADS scores to GPs' information could improve their diagnostic accuracy of GAD and MDE.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Changing illness perceptions after myocardial infarction: an early intervention randomized controlled trial.

            This study was designed to examine whether a brief hospital intervention designed to alter patients' perceptions about their myocardial infarction (MI) would result in a better recovery and reduced disability. In a prospective randomized study, 65 consecutive patients with their first MI aged were assigned to receive an intervention designed to alter their perceptions about their MI or usual care from rehabilitation nurses. Patients were assessed in hospital before and after the intervention and at 3 months after discharge from hospital. The intervention caused significant positive changes in patients' views of their MI. Patients in the intervention group also reported they were better prepared for leaving hospital (p<.05) and subsequently returned to work at a significantly faster rate than the control group (p<.05). At the 3-month follow-up, patients in the intervention group reported a significantly lower rate of angina symptoms than control subjects (14.3 vs. 39.3, p<.03). There was no significant differences in rehabilitation attendance between the two groups. An in-hospital intervention designed to change patients' illness perceptions can result in improved functional outcome after MI.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What does self rated health measure? Results from the British Whitehall II and French Gazel cohort studies.

              To investigate the determinants of self rated health (SRH) in men and women in the British Whitehall II study and the French Gazel cohort study. The cross sectional analyses reported in this paper use data from wave 1 of the Whitehall II study (1985-88) and wave 2 of the Gazel study (1990). Determinants were either self reported or obtained through medical screening and employer's records. The Whitehall II study is based on 20 civil service departments located in London. The Gazel study is based on employees of France's national gas and electricity company (EDF-GDF). SRH data were available on 6889 men and 3403 women in Whitehall II and 13 008 men and 4688 women in Gazel. Correlation analysis was used to identify determinants of SRH from 35 measures in Whitehall II and 33 in Gazel. Stepwise multiple regressions identified five determinants (symptom score, sickness absence, longstanding illness, minor psychiatric morbidity, number of recurring health problems) in Whitehall II, explaining 34.7% of the variance in SRH. In Gazel, four measures (physical tiredness, number of health problems in the past year, physical mobility, number of prescription drugs used) explained 41.4% of the variance in SRH. Measures of mental and physical health status contribute most to the SRH construct. The part played by age, early life factors, family history, sociodemographic variables, psychosocial factors, and health behaviours in these two occupational cohorts is modest.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                2006
                29 August 2006
                : 6
                : 219
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Norway
                [2 ]Division of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, UK
                [3 ]The Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Norway
                [4 ]Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Mental Health, Oslo, Norway
                Article
                1471-2458-6-219
                10.1186/1471-2458-6-219
                1560129
                16939642
                2ecc666e-3113-48e7-a980-5240d2ddfbdb
                Copyright © 2006 Overland et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 April 2006
                : 29 August 2006
                Categories
                Research Article

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article