Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of work-related ill-health data from different GB sources.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    133 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: A number of data sources help inform policy decisions regarding the risk of work-related ill-health. AIMS: To compare self-reported and medically reported data from multiple sources and discuss their benefits and limitations in providing estimates of work-related ill-health incidence in Great Britain. METHODS: Sources included The Health & Occupation Reporting network (THOR & THOR-GP (THOR in General Practice)) and the survey of Self-reported Work-related Illness (SWI). Results from SWI and THOR from GPs, rheumatologists, psychiatrists, dermatologists and respiratory physicians (2006-2009) were compared. THOR-GP data also included patient referrals information. RESULTS: Overall incidence rates were highest when calculated from self-reported data, and lowest from clinical specialists. SWI rates were higher than GP rates for mental ill-health (SWI 790, GP 500 per 100 000 persons employed) and 'other' diagnoses (SWI 368, GP 41), whereas incidence rates for musculoskeletal (SWI 670, GP 684) and skin diagnoses (SWI 38, GP 152) were higher from GPs. Very few cases of musculoskeletal and mental ill-health were referred to clinical specialists (
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)30-37
    Number of pages7
    JournalOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)
    Volume63
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of work-related ill-health data from different GB sources.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this