Health and prolonging working lives: an advisory report of the Health Council of The Netherlands

Objective This paper summarizes the main findings and recommendations of an advisory report on health and prolonging working life, which was requested by the Dutch Minister of Social Affairs and Employment. Methods The advisory report was compiled by a multidisciplinary committee of ten scientists appointed by the Health Council of The Netherlands. The committee's aims were to (i) describe the health of the ageing population, (ii) describe how prolonging working life influences health, (iii) describe determinants, besides health, for prolonging working lives, and (iv) review the literature on interventions aimed at retaining or improving employability of older workers. Results The report was presented to the Minister on 26 June 2018. As the likelihood of health problems increases with age, prolonging working life may be difficult. In general, life expectancy increases and gains in life years and health seem mainly attributable to people aged >75 years. Work is good for mental health. However, it may be beneficial for mental health to stop working around the retirement age. Besides health, financial factors, lifestyle, motivation to work, and working conditions play a role in prolonging working life. A systematic review of the evidence indicated that interventions such as worksite health promotion or career development workshops can support older workers in this matter. Conclusions The Health Council advised the Dutch Government to focus on worksite health promotion and career development interventions as well as the improvement of their implementation. This requires a tailored approach as there is a large diversity in health among older workers and particularly between low- and higheducated people. With this in mind, it was further recommended to explore whether flexible pension schemes might better suit this diversit

Comparison of expert and job-exposure matrix-based retrospective exposure assessment of occupational carcinogens in the Netherlands Cohort Study

Objectives Reliable retrospective exposure assessment continues to be a challenge in most population-based studies. Several methodologies exist for estimating exposures retrospectively, of which case-by-case expert assessment and job-exposure matrices (JEMs) are commonly used. This study evaluated the reliability of exposure estimates for selected carcinogens obtained through three JEMs by comparing the estimates with case-by-case expert assessment within the Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS). Methods The NLCS includes 58 279 men aged 55e69 years at enrolment in 1986. For a subcohort of these men (n¼1630), expert assessment is available for exposure to asbestos, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and welding fumes. Reliability of the different JEMs (DOMJEM (asbestos, PAHs), FINJEM (asbestos, PAHs and welding fumes) and Asbestos JEM (asbestos) was determined by assessing the agreement between these JEMs and the expert assessment. Results Expert assessment revealed the lowest prevalence of exposure for all three exposures (asbestos 9.3%; PAHs 5.3%; welding fumes 11.7%). The DOMJEM showed the highest level of agreement with the expert assessment for asbestos and PAHs (ks¼0.29 and 0.42, respectively), closely followed by the FINJEM. For welding fumes, concordance between the expert assessment and FINJEM was high (k¼0.70). The Asbestos JEM showed poor agreement with the expert asbestos assessment (k¼0.10). Conclusions This study shows case-by-case expert assessment to result in the lowest prevalence of occupational exposure in the NLCS. Furthermore, the DOMJEM and FINJEM proved to be rather similar in agreement when compared with the expert assessment. The Asbestos JEM appeared to be less appropriate for use in the NLCS

Fatigue and job stress as predictors for sickness absence during common infections.

Contains fulltext : 47847.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of health and work-related factors as predictors of subsequent sickness absence when experiencing common infections (common cold, flu-like illness, and gastroenteritis). Self-administered questionnaire data were used (baseline n = 12,140). To perform the analysis, employees reporting common infections in the final questionnaire were selected. Employees reporting sickness absence due to common infections were compared with a group who stayed at work during an infection. Multivariate survival analysis revealed no significant effects of job demands, decision latitude, or job strain on absence in workers experiencing common infections. Low levels of commitment (risk [RR] 1.22; confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.44) and low job satisfaction (RR 1.36; CI 1.13-1.164) increased the chance of being absent during a common cold. Also, having a long-standing disease (RR 1.22; CI 1.05-1.41) and fatigue (RR 1.20; CI 1.05-1.37) increased the chance of being absent during a common infection. Having an executive function decreased the chance of being absent. We conclude that absence during a common cold is partly influenced by motivational factors in work, in contrast to more severe common infections which are more health related. Insight in factors related to absenteeism are important as a start for preventive measures to reduce sickness absence