Back

Predicting work disability among people with chronic conditions: a large prospective cohort study

Nyberg, S.; Airaksinen, J.; Pentti, J.; Ervasti, J.; Jokela, M.; Vahtera, J.; Virtanen, M.; Elovainio, M.; Batty, G. D.; Kivimaki, M.

2022-08-19 occupational and environmental health
10.1101/2022.08.18.22278925 medRxiv
Show abstract

Few risk prediction scores are available to identify people at increased risk of work disability, particularly for those with an existing morbidity. We examined the predictive performance of disability risk scores for employees with chronic disease. We used prospective data from 88,521 employed participants (mean age 43.1) in the Finnish Public Sector Study which included people with chronic disorders: musculoskeletal disorder, depression, migraine, respiratory disease, hypertension, cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes and comorbid depression and cardiometabolic disease. 105 predictors were assessed at baseline and participants were linked to a national disability pension register. During a mean follow-up of 8.6 years, 6836 (7.7%) participants got a disability pension, the incidence varying between 9.9% among participants with migraine and 27.7% in those with comorbid depression and cardiometabolic disease. C-statistics for an 8-item risk score, comprising age, self-rated health, number of sickness absences, socioeconomic position, number of chronic illnesses, sleep problems, BMI, and smoking at baseline, was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.80-0.81) for musculoskeletal disorders (N=33,601), 0.83 (0.82-0.84) for migraine (N=22,065), 0.82 (0.81-0.83) for respiratory disease (N=15,372) and exceeded 0.72 for other disease groups. With 30% estimated risk as a threshold, a positive test detection rate and false positive rate ranged from 42.2% and 18.8% (cancer) to 79.8% and 45.2% (comorbid depression and cardiometabolic disease). Predictive performance was not improved in models with a new set of predictors or re-estimated coefficients. In conclusion, the 8-item work disability risk score may serve as a scalable screening tool in identifying individuals with increased risk for work disability.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.7%
2
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.8%
3
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.7%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.5%
6
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.5%
7
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
9
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.8%
11
Journal of Occupational Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
13
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
15
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
16
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
17
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.8%
18
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
23
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%