• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Faculty of Psychology
  • Department of Health Promotion and Development
  • Department of Health Promotion and Development
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Faculty of Psychology
  • Department of Health Promotion and Development
  • Department of Health Promotion and Development
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Verifiability of diagnostic categories and work ability in the context of disability pension award: A survey on "gatekeeping" among general practitioners in Norway

Øverland, Rein; Øverland, Simon Nygaard; Johansen, Kristian Nyborg; Mykletun, Arnstein
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Thumbnail
View/Open
BIOMed_Verifiablility.pdf (487.4Kb)
1471-2458-8-137-S1.DOC (36.5Kb)
1471-2458-8-137-S2.DOC (24.5Kb)
1471-2458-8-137.xml (64.33Kb)
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/1956/2706
Date
2008-04-25
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Department of Health Promotion and Development [415]
Original version
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-137
Abstract
Background Disability benefits exist to redeem social and financial consequences of reduced work ability from medical conditions. Physicians are responsible for identifying the medical grounds for benefit claims. The aim of this study was to explore physicians' views on verifiability of medical conditions and related work ability in this context. Methods Information on verifiability of diagnostic categories and work ability was obtained from a survey among a representative sample of general practitioners (GPs) in Norway (n = 500, 25.2% response rate). Verifiability was defined as to what extent the assessment is based on objective criteria versus on information from the patient. We enquired about the diagnostic categories used in official statistics on main disability benefit causes in Norway and elsewhere. Results On a scale from 0 (low verifiability) to 5 (high verifiability), the mean level of verifiability across all diagnostic categories was 3.7 (SD = 0.42). Degree of verifiability varied much between diagnostic categories, and was low in e.g. unspecified rheumatism/myalgia and dorsopathies, and high in neoplasms and congenital malformations, deformation and chromosomal abnormalities. Verifiability of work ability was reported to be more problematic than that of diagnostic categories. The diagnostic categories rated as the least verifiable, are also the most common in disability pension awards. Conclusion Verifiability of both diagnostic categories and work ability in disability assessments are reported to be moderate by GPs. We suggest that the low verifiability of diagnostic categories and related work ability assessments in the majority of disability pension awards is important in explaining why GPs find the gatekeeping-function problematic.
Publisher
BioMed Central

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit