Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2009 Dec;19(4):419-26.
doi: 10.1007/s10926-009-9202-3.

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

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

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

J R Anema et al. J Occup Rehabil. 2009 Dec.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Survival curves of work disability duration until sustainable RTW for workers in six countries sick listed 3–4 months due to LBP

References

    1. Waddell G, Aylward M, Sawney P. Back pain, incapacity for work and social security benefits: an international literature review and analysis. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2002.
    1. Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. Medically certified sickness absence. BMJ. 2008;337:825–826. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1174. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Choosing health: making healthier choices easier. London: Department of Health. 2004.
    1. Towards a better understanding of sickness absence costs. Dorking: Unum Limited, Institute for Employment Studies. 2001.
    1. Blum F, Burton JF. Workers’ compensation costs in 2005: regional, industrial, and other variations. Work Compens Policy Rev. 2006;6:3–20.

Publication types