Advertisement

Conceptual Framework: Disability Evaluation and Vocational Rehabilitation

  • Gerold Stucki
  • Soren Brage
  • Debra Homa
  • Reuben EscorpizoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability book series (SHHDW)

Abstract

Disability represents a major challenge that societies worldwide have to address and poses a burden at different levels: individual, societal, and economic. Disability can substantially and significantly impact work participation of individuals and hence may result in work disability. Assessment of disability in the context of work and employment is essential to guide and facilitate appropriate and adequate return-to-work (RTW) strategies and help ensure that the individual remains to be at work. Disability evaluation is crucial to determine a claimant’s eligibility for disability benefits as well as to establish appropriate levels of benefits. Disability evaluation also provides necessary information whether assignment to an RTW program is required before receiving disability benefits. Because the key information in disability evaluation refers to functioning and disability, standards for functioning assessment are instrumental in ensuring comparability, transparency, and fairness in disability evaluation. The internationally accepted standard for reporting information on functioning and disability is the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) which could contribute to a transparent illustration of how impairments affect a claimant’s work activities, work participation, and work disability and identify the role of contextual factors in the process. The ICF can also be used to promote standardized reporting of work disability.

Keywords

Contextual Factor Work Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Disability Benefit Work Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Glossary

Disability Evaluation

The assessment of the extent of a person’s work disability is among the key features of disability evaluation (DE). DE is instrumental to assign persons with disabilities (i.e., claimants) to the most appropriate return-to-work (RTW) programs, medical rehabilitation, and/or provision of assistive devices. DE is also crucial to determine claimants’ eligibility for disability benefits, to establish appropriate levels of benefits, and provides the necessary information whether assignment to an RTW program is required before receiving disability benefits.

Eligibility Determination for Benefits

DE in the context of eligibility determination for benefits is the “determination of the degree of a person’s physical, mental, or emotional [disability]. The diagnosis is applied to legal qualification for benefits and income under disability insurance and to eligibility for Social Security and workers’ compensation benefits.”

Functioning Assessments

Functioning assessments (FA) are core elements of DE across countries [2] and provide useful information for evaluating work disability. FA in the context of DE address the claimant’s ability to perform activities relevant for executing physical or cognitive work tasks such as lifting or focusing attention. There are differences in FA depending on whether the sole purpose for the DE is determining eligibility for benefits or also, respectively, exclusively considering RTW. Toward facilitating RTW, FA in DE focuses on the appraisal of the claimant’s functional performance. Assessments of functional limitations or abilities and influencing contextual factors such as the claimant’s living conditions or the situation on the job market are the basis for selecting appropriate RTW programs to enhance the claimant’s functioning at work and, finally, work participation. FA in DE toward eligibility determination for disability benefits are geared toward an objective statement on the claimant’s functional capacity in a standardized environment without considering the influence of contextual factors. The assessments provide key information for the determination of the relationship between impairments and functional limitations and, thus, for establishing a claimant’s work disability.

Return-to-Work Programs and Vocational Rehabilitation

Return-to-work (RTW) programs can be understood interchangeably with the term vocational rehabilitation (VR). Escorpizo et al. [19] defined VR as “a multi-professional evidence-based approach that is provided in different settings, services, and activities to working age individuals with health-related impairments, limitations, or restrictions with work functioning, and whose primary aim is to optimize work participation.” An RTW program is in principle VR of those who have previously worked with the ultimate goal of undertaking work duties long term. RTW programs encompass services such as job counseling, job placement, job matching, job coaching, skills development and retraining, provision of products and technology, work conditioning, or workplace modification.

Work Disability

In the context of RTW, work disability is defined as a claimant’s inability to work due to an illness or injury in the light of influencing contextual factors.

In the context of eligibility determination for disability benefits, work disability is seen as a legal concept with varying definitions among social security laws of different countries. However, work disability usually refers to a person’s inability to work due to an illness or injury without considering the influence of contextual factors.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Geneva: United Nations; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization, World Bank. World report on disability. Geneva: WHO Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Community Support Network Inc. Employment. Available from: www.csni.org/fpg/Volume%20I%20Employment.pdf (2013). Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  4. 4.
    Eisenberg JM, Power EJ. Transforming insurance coverage into quality health care: voltage drops from potential to delivered quality. JAMA. 2000;284(16):2100–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Boer W, Besseling J, Willems J. Organisation of disability evaluation in 15 countries. Pratiques et organisation des soins. 2007;38:205–17.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slebus FG, Sluiter JK, Kuijer PP, Willems JH, Frings-Dresen MH. Work-ability evaluation: a piece of cake or a hard nut to crack? Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(16):1295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Waddell G, Aylward M. The scientific and conceptual basis of incapacity benefits. Norwich: TSO; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Library of Medicine. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2013/MB_cgi (2013). Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  9. 9.
    Anner J, Schwegler U, Kunz R, Trezzini B, de Boer W. Evaluation of work disability and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: what to expect and what not. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:470.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demeter SL, Andersson GBJ, Smith GM, editors. Disability evaluation. St. Louis: Mosby and the American Medical Association; 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudbeck M, Fonager K. Agreement between medical expert assessments in social medicine. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7):766–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matheson LN, Kane M, Rodbard D. Development of new methods to determine work disability in the United States. J Occup Rehabil. 2001;11(3):143–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meershoek A, Krumeich A, Vos R. Judging without criteria? Sickness certification in Dutch disability schemes. Sociol Health Illn. 2007;29(4):497–514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stöhr S, Bollag Y, Auerbach H, Eichler K, Imhof D, Fabbro T, et al. Quality assessment of a randomly selected sample of Swiss medical expertises – a pilot study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2011;141:w13173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hesse B, Gebauer E. Disability assessment for the statutory benefits insurance: significance, need for research, and opportunities. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2011;50(1):17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan CC, Zhuo DH. Occupational rehabilitation in twenty-first century Asia Pacific: facilitating health and work: an introduction. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21 Suppl 1:S1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stubbs J, Deaner G. When considering vocational rehabilitation: describing and comparing the Swedish and American systems and professions. Work. 2005;24(3):239–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. Sickness, disability and work: keeping on track in the economic downturn (background paper). May 2009. Report No.: High-Level Forum, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Escorpizo R, Reneman MF, Ekholm J, Fritz J, Krupa T, Marnetoft SU, et al. A conceptual definition of vocational rehabilitation based on the ICF: building a shared global model. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):126–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwegler U, Anner J, Boldt C, Glässel A, Lay V, De Boer WEL, et al. Aspects of functioning and environmental factors in medical work capacity evaluations of persons with chronic widespread pain and low back pain can be represented by a combination of applicable ICF Core Sets. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1088.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baron S, Linden M. The role of the “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, ICF” in the description and classification of mental disorders. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2008;258 Suppl 5:81–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanderson K, Nicholson J, Graves N, Tilse E, Oldenburg B. Mental health in the workplace: using the ICF to model the prospective associations between symptoms, activities, participation and environmental factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(17):1289–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brage S, Donceel P, Falez F. Development of ICF core set for disability evaluation in social security. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(18):1392–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerold Stucki
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Soren Brage
    • 4
  • Debra Homa
    • 5
  • Reuben Escorpizo
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Swiss Paraplegic ResearchNottwilSwitzerland
  2. 2.ICF Research Branch of the WHO CC FIC in Germany (DIMDI)NottwilSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Health Sciences and Health PolicyUniversity of LucerneLucerneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Research UnitDirectorate for Labour and WelfareOsloNorway
  5. 5.Department of Rehabilitation and CounselingUniversity of Wisconsin-StoutMenomonieUSA
  6. 6.Department of Rehabilitation and Movement ScienceThe University of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations