Ill health - completed research

This page summarises the key findings from recent completed research projects relating to work-related ill health:

Analysis of the correlates of self-reported work-related illness in the Labour Force Survey

Key findings:

Males in work are 16% less likely to suffer from work-related ill-health than females in work
The risk of work-related ill-health increases steeply over the life course, peaking amongst those aged 50 to 59
Occupation is the most important risk factor for work-related ill health, particularly for musculoskeletal disorders
For stress, depression and anxiety, occupation and hours of work are jointly the most important risk factors, with longer hours being associated with higher rates of mental ill health
Job tenure also has a significant influence on rates of work-related ill health with those who have been in their jobs longer having a higher risk of work-related illness
A spouse or partner acting as a proxy respondent is associated with a 26% reduction in the likelihood that an individual is recorded as suffering from work related ill-health. This increases to 53% where the proxy respondent is not a spouse or partner
Respondents to the first wave of LFS interviews are most likely to report that they suffer a from a work-related ill-health condition, reflecting the better quality of data collected from face to face interviews compared with interviews in later waves that are conducted over the phone
Based upon both the differential quality of proxy respondents and responses provided during later waves of the survey, overall rates of under-reporting within the LFS would be expected to be in the order of 20-25%

Key findings:

Overall, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) reports 25% higher rates for work-related ill health compared with the THOR-GP scheme, possibly due to the LFS capturing less severe cases which are not referred to a GP
Stress and Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) dominate both sources although rates of MSD are higher in THOR-GP and rates of stress, depression and anxiety are higher from the LFS. This could reflect the inclusion of some injuries in the THOR data and GPs possibly identifying other non-work factors as the underlying cause of stress;
Rates of work-related skin disease are substantially higher from THOR-GP than the LFS. This may reflect better awareness amongst the GP reporters who have been trained in occupational medicine of possible work-related causes compared to the awareness of the individual;
The LFS shows higher rates of "other" work-related illnesses;
The age and industry profile of work-related ill health sufferers is very similar from both sources;
The LFS shows higher ill health rates for skilled and professional workers compared with THOR-GP although this is confounded by the higher rates of stress that are found in the LFS.

Key findings:

An expert review panel accepted that in 77% of cases work was the main or contributory cause of the illness. In a further 10% of cases it may have exacerbated symptoms;
In 80% of cases, where information was available, the same decision was made by the respondent's doctor and the review panel;
Variables most strongly associated with apparent mistaken ascription were occupation and time since end of exposure to the work the respondent believed had caused or made their illness worse;
Psychological characteristics and illness beliefs of respondents do not appear to have a significant effect on the reliability of the reports, after accounting for occupation and time since end of exposure;
Work-related illness has an impact on the daily lives of individuals; the general physical and mental health of those affected tends not to be good;
There is no standard measure of work-related illness without problems; all available sources are subject to some kind of error. Self reports are broadly reliable; the level of mistaken reports will to some extent be counter-balanced by opposite biases. When sensibly interpreted, such surveys provide valid information not available from other sources.