The impact of depression and diabetes mellitus on older workers' functioning

Objective: Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a framework, this study investigates the impact of depression and diabetes mellitus on older workers' functioning (problems with concentration, physical functioning, need for recovery and work and social participation restrictions). The study focuses on how these chronic conditions, in their interaction with the work context, affect older workers' functioning, which may be an important precursor of early retirement. Methods: Older workers (>= 45 years) with depression (n = 127) or diabetes mellitus (n = 107) enrolled in the prospective Maastricht Cohort Study (MCS) were followed between October 2008 and October 2012. Linear, logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of these health conditions on workers' functioning compared to a reference group of older workers without a chronic condition (n = 1612). The interaction with participants' working conditions (psychological job demands, decision latitude and strenuous work) was also analysed. Results: Compared to the reference group, depression and diabetes mellitus were (over time) positively related with need for recovery caseness and restrictions in social participation but not with restrictions in work participation. Depression was positively related with concentration problems and need for recovery, whereas diabetes mellitus was negatively related with physical functioning. Finally, the relationship between functioning and depression and diabetes mellitus depends on working conditions. Conclusion: Older workers with depression or diabetes mellitus are vulnerable to losses in specific domains of functioning. The impact on functioning varies across working conditions, providing insight for disease-tailored preventive measures. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved

The Context Dependency of the Self-Report Version of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): A Cross-Sectional Study between Two Administration Settings

The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a screening instrument for psychosocial problems in children and adolescents, which is applied in "individual" and "collective" settings. Assessment in the individual setting is confidential for clinical applications, such as preventive child healthcare, while assessment in the collective setting is anonymous and applied in (epidemiological) research. Due to administration differences between the settings it remains unclear whether results and conclusions actually can be used interchangeably. This study therefore aims to investigate whether the SDQ is invariant across settings.Two independent samples were retrieved (mean age = 14.07 years), one from an individual setting (N = 6,594) and one from a collective setting (N = 4,613). The SDQ was administered in the second year of secondary school in both settings. Samples come from the same socio-geographic population in the Netherlands.Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the SDQ was measurement invariant/equivalent across settings and gender. On average, children in the individual setting scored lower on total difficulties (mean difference = 2.05) and the psychosocial problems subscales compared to those in the collective setting. This was also reflected in the cut-off points for caseness, defined by the 90th percentiles, which were lower in the individual setting. Using cut-off points from the collective in the individual setting therefore resulted in a small number of cases, 2 to 3%, while ∼10% is expected.The SDQ has the same connotation across the individual and collective setting. The observed structural differences regarding the mean scores, however, undermine the validity of the cross-use of absolute SDQ-scores between these settings. Applying cut-off scores from the collective setting in the individual setting could, therefore, result in invalid conclusions and potential misuse of the instrument. To correctly apply cut-off scores these should be retrieved from the applied setting

Need for recovery in the working population: description and associations with fatigue and psychological distress.

This study examined the concept of need for recovery, that is the need to recuperate from work-induced fatigue, experienced after a day of work. The study explored the relationship between need for recovery from work, prolonged fatigue, and psychological distress in the working population. A cross-sectional study was carried out. Data of the Maastricht Cohort Study on fatigue at work were used (n = 12,095). Some degree of need for recovery was found in nearly all employees. Need for recovery from work was associated with demographic, work-related, and health factors. Principal Components Analysis revealed obvious separation between need for recovery items and both fatigue items and psychological distress items, supporting the notion that need for recovery, fatigue, and psychological distress represent different underlying concepts. Although need for recovery, fatigue, and psychological distress were frequently comorbid, they also clearly occurred as separate entities

Approaches for predicting long-term sickness absence. Re: Schouten et al. "Screening manual and office workers for risk of long-term sickness absence: cut-off points for the Work Ability Index"

We read with much interest the article of Schouten et al (1) on identifying workers with a high risk for future long-term sickness absence using the Work Ability Index (WAI). The ability to identify high-risk workers might facilitate targeted interventions for such workers and, consequently, can reduce sickness absence levels and improve workers' health. Earlier studies by both Tamela et al (2), Kant et al (3), and Lexis et al (4) have demonstrated that such an approach, based on the identification of high-risk workers and a subsequent intervention, can be effectively applied in practice to reduce sickness absence significantly. The reason for our letter on Schouten et al's article is twofold. First, by including workers already on sick leave in a study predicting long-term sick leave will result in an overestimation of the predictive properties of the instrument and biased predictors, especially when also the outcome of interest is included as a factor in the prediction model. Second, we object to the use of the term "screening" when subjects with the condition screened for are included in the study. Reinforced by the inclusion of sickness absence in the prediction model, including workers already on sick leave will shift the focus of the study findings towards the prediction of (re)current sickness absence and workers with a below-average return-to-work rate, rather than the identification of workers at high risk for the onset of future long-term sickness absence. The possibilities for prevention will shift from pure secondary prevention to a mix of secondary and tertiary prevention. As a consequence, the predictors of the model presented in the Schouten et al article can be used as a basis for tailoring neither preventive measures nor interventions. Moreover, including the outcome (sickness absence) as a predictor in the model, especially in a mixed population including workers with and without the condition (on sick leave), will result in biased predictors and an overestimation of the predictive value. A methodological approach of related issues is provided in the works of Glymour et al (5) and Hamilton et al (6). This phenomenon is even more clearly illustrated by the predictive properties of the workability index, as described by Alavinia et al (7, page 328), which reported that "when adjusted for individual characteristics, lifestyle factors, and work characteristics, two dimensions of the WAI were significant predictors for both moderate and long durations of sickness absence: (i) the presence of sickness absence in the past 12 months prior to the medical examination and (ii) experienced limitations due to health problems." So, when applied to the study by Schouten et al (1), this means that most of the predictive value would be related to the factors "sickness absence in the past 12 months". In addition, we object to the use of the term "screening" in the Schouten et al study as it includes workers with the intended outcome (long-term sickness absence). One can identify three separate aims to study the longitudinal association between risk factors and subsequent long-term sickness absence: (i) to establish causal risk factors for long-term sickness absence, often to find clues for primary preventive strategies (beyond the scope here); (ii) to identify high-risk workers who are still at work and might benefit from an intervention before sickness absence occurs (secondary prevention); and (iii) to identify workers on sick leave who might suffer a below-average return-to-work rate or have a high risk for the recurrence of (long-term) sickness absence and might benefit from intensification or optimization of the return-to-work process (tertiary prevention). In this light, one needs to separate screening instruments from predictive instruments and reserve the term "screening" for the situation as defined by Wilson and Junger (8, page 7): "The object of screening for disease is to discover those among the apparently well who are in fact suffering from disease" (ie, situations of secondary prevention). This means that, when applying this definition on long-term sickness absence under the precondition that the individuals are still at work, screening enables the identification of high-risk individuals in the early "stages" of a "disease" that can progress into long-term sickness absence. In the case of the Schouten et al study, the population at risk, as derived from their predictive instrument, consists of workers with and without sickness absence, and as such excludes the use of the term "screening" in this case. To conclude, we have substantiated that, in addition to correct usage of the term "screening", careful selection of the study population, predictors and most importantly the aim of the predic