Sick-listing adherence: a register study of 1.4 million episodes of sickness benefit 2010-2013 in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: This register study aims to increase the knowledge on how common it is that sickness benefit recipients are sick-listed for as long as their physician prescribes in their medical sickness certificate, i.e. sick-listing adherence, or wholly/partly bring return-to-work (RTW) forward, i.e. early RTW. METHODS: The unit for analysis was an episode of 100% sickness benefit, commenced between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013. Completed episodes of sickness benefit and full or partial early RTW was analysed by comparing the prescribed length of sick leave in medical sickness certificates and benefit days disbursed by the sickness insurance system. Probability for a full and partial early RTW was estimated with hazard ratio (HR) using the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: In total, about 1.4 million episodes of sickness benefit (60% women) were included in the study. The overall sick-listing adherence was 84% for women and 82% for men during the first year of sick leave. Adherence varied between 82 and 87% among women and between 79 and 86% among men with regard to ICD-10 diagnosis chapter. The probability of an early RTW varied between diagnosis chapters, where mental disorders was associated with a lower probability of a full early RTW among women and men (HR 0.52 and HR 0.47) as well as a partial early RTW (HR 0.51 and HR 0.46). Younger age (16-29 years), high educational level and high income was associated with a higher probability of an early RTW, while older age (≥ 50 years), not native-born, low educational level, unemployment and parental leave were associated with a lower probability. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that sick-listing adherence is relatively high. Probability of an early RTW differs with regard to diagnosis chapter, demographic, socioeconomic and labour market characteristics of the sickness benefit recipients. Interventions intended to improve the sick-listing process, and to affect the length and degree of sick leave in certain target groups, should include measures targeted at physicians' sick-listing practices. Policies and economic incentives aimed at promoting RTW need to focus on individuals' residual capacity for work.

How common is change of primary diagnosis during an episode of sickness benefit? A register study of medical sickness certificates issued 2010-2012 in Sweden.

AIM: The aims of this study were to investigate how common it is to change primary diagnosis between different diagnostic chapters during a sick-leave spell, and to explore patterns of diagnostic changes. METHODS: The unit for analysis was episode of sickness benefit, that is, sick leave >14 days, which commenced between 2010 and 2012 in Sweden. For each case, the primary diagnosis was retrieved from the first and last/latest medical sickness certificate, respectively. The number of days of sickness benefit was linked to the cases. Any change of primary diagnosis was analysed by diagnostic chapter according to the ICD-10, and this was done separately for women and men. RESULTS: In total, 803,041 cases of sickness benefit (63% women) were included in the study. During a sick-leave spell, 7.1% of female cases and 6.6% of male cases changed their primary diagnosis to a diagnosis from another diagnostic chapter. The change of primary diagnosis increased with the number of days with sickness benefit. For female cases, this increase was from 2.0% for cases that lasted 15-30 days to 20.2% for cases that lasted >365 days. For male cases, the corresponding increase was from 1.8% to 21.2%. A change of primary diagnosis was least common among those initially sick-listed for mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders. The patterns of diagnostic changes were rather similar for women and men. CONCLUSIONS: A change of diagnosis during a sick-leave spell needs to be taken into consideration by the sickness insurance system and in the actions taken by its administration. Registry-based studies of sickness insurance need to consider diagnostic changes in both the study design and the interpretation of results.