The prognosis for individuals on disability retirement An 18-year mortality follow-up study of 6887 men and women sampled from the general population

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown a markedly higher mortality rate among disability pensioners than among non-retired. Since most disability pensions are granted because of non-fatal diseases the reason for the increased mortality therefore remains largely unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential explanatory factors. METHODS: Data from five longitudinal cohort studies in Sweden, including 6,887 men and women less than 65 years old at baseline were linked to disability pension data, hospital admission data, and mortality data from 1971 until 2001. Mortality odds ratios were analyzed with Poisson regression and Cox's proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: 1,683 (24.4%) subjects had a disability pension at baseline or received one during follow up. 525 (7.6%) subjects died during follow up. The subjects on disability pension had a higher mortality rate than the non-retired, the hazards ratio (HR) being 2.78 (95%CI 2.08–3.71) among women and 3.43 (95%CI 2.61–4.51) among men. HR was highest among individuals granted a disability pension at young ages (HR >7), and declined parallel to age at which the disability pension was granted. The higher mortality rate among the retired subjects was not explained by disability pension cause or underlying disease or differences in age, marital status, educational level, smoking habits or drug abuse. There was no significant association between reason for disability pension and cause of death. CONCLUSION: Subjects with a disability pension had increased mortality rates as compared with non-retired subjects, only modestly affected by adjustments for psycho-socio-economic factors, underlying disease, etcetera. It is unlikely that these factors were the causes of the unfavorable outcome. Other factors must be at work

Assessing the Effects of Personal Characteristics and Context on U.S. House Speakers’ Leadership Styles, 1789-2006

Research on congressional leadership has been dominated in recent decades by contextual interpretations that see leaders’ behavior as best explained by the environment in which they seek to exercise leadership—particularly, the preference homogeneity and size of their party caucus. The role of agency is thus discounted, and leaders’ personal characteristics and leadership styles are underplayed. Focusing specifically on the speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives from the first to the 110th Congress, we construct measures of each speaker’s commitment to comity and leadership assertiveness. We find the scores reliable and then test the extent to which a speaker’s style is the product of both political context and personal characteristics. Regression estimates on speakers’ personal assertiveness scores provide robust support for a context-plus-personal characteristics explanation, whereas estimates of their comity scores show that speakers’ personal backgrounds trump context