Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Occup Rehabil ; 25(4): 675-84, 2015 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25804926

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Chronic diseases are associated with productivity loss costs due to sickness absence. It is not always clear, however, which chronic diseases in particular are involved with how many sickness days and associated costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, additional days of sickness absence, and associated costs of chronic diseases among the Dutch working population from 2007 to 2011. METHODS: Prevalence of chronic diseases and additional days of sickness absence were derived from the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey (NWCS) from 2007 to 2011. The cost of each sickness absence day was based on linked personal income data. We used multiple regression analysis to derive the unconfounded additional days of sickness absence due to each chronic disease. RESULTS: Annually, approximately 37 % of the Dutch working population reported some type of chronic physical or psychological disease. No clinically relevant changes in prevalence of specific chronic diseases were observed in the studied period, nor in the number of additional sickness absence days or associated costs. The national financial burden due to sickness absence associated with chronic musculoskeletal disorders amounted to €1.3 billion annually. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic diseases result in substantial productivity loss due to sickness absence. Given the ageing population, the proposed increase in the state pension age and an increase in sedentary lifestyle and obesity, the prevalence of chronic diseases may be expected to rise. Coordinated efforts to maintain and improve the health of the working population are necessary to minimize socioeconomic consequences.


Subject(s)
Absenteeism , Chronic Disease/economics , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Sick Leave/economics , Cardiovascular Diseases/economics , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Gastrointestinal Diseases/economics , Gastrointestinal Diseases/epidemiology , Health Surveys , Hearing Disorders/economics , Hearing Disorders/epidemiology , Humans , Mental Disorders/economics , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Migraine Disorders/economics , Migraine Disorders/epidemiology , Musculoskeletal Diseases/economics , Musculoskeletal Diseases/epidemiology , Netherlands/epidemiology , Prevalence , Respiratory Tract Diseases/economics , Respiratory Tract Diseases/epidemiology , Sick Leave/statistics & numerical data , Vision Disorders/economics , Vision Disorders/epidemiology
2.
Scand J Work Environ Health ; 36(4): 289-98, 2010 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20523960

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In many European countries, external economic incentives are discussed as a policy instrument to promote occupational safety and health (OSH) in enterprises. This narrative case study review aims to support policy-makers in organizations providing such incentives by supplying information about different incentive schemes and their main characteristics such as effectiveness, efficiency, and feasibility. METHODS: The focal point and topic centre network of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work were used to collect case studies about incentive schemes aimed at supporting the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases in enterprises. Such incentives are rarely described in the scientific literature. To be considered for this review, studies had to focus on external financial benefits that could be provided as part of an insurance-related incentive or a governmental subsidy scheme. RESULTS: In total, 14 cases were included in the review: 6 insurance premium- and 8 subsidy-based schemes. Of these, 13 contained an evaluation of the incentive scheme, of which 7 use quantitative criteria. Three cases provided sufficient data to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Most qualitative evaluations related to the successful management of the program and the effectiveness of the promoted measures in the workplace. Regarding the latter, quantitative criteria covered accident rates, sick leave, and general improvement in working conditions. The cost-benefit analyses all resulted in a positive payout ratio, ranging from 1.01-4.81 euros return for every 1 euro invested. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, we found economic incentive schemes to be feasible and reasonably effective. However, analysis regarding the efficiency of such schemes is scarce and our evaluation of the cost-benefit analysis had to rely on few cases that, nevertheless, delivered positive results for large samples. Besides this finding, our study also revealed deficits in the quality of evaluations. In order to enable policy-makers to make well-informed decisions about public investments in OSH, better standards for reporting and evaluating incentive schemes are needed.


Subject(s)
Economics , Motivation , Occupational Health , European Union , Insurance
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...