BACKGROUND: Since the early 1990s, rates of incapacity benefit (IB) in Britain for musculoskeletal complaints have declined, and they have been overtaken by mental and behavioural disorders as the main reason for award of IB. AIMS: To explore reasons for this change. METHODS: Using data supplied by the Department for Work and Pensions, we analysed trends in the ratio of new IB awards for mental and behavioural disorders to those for musculoskeletal disorders during 1997-2007 by Government region. RESULTS: In Great Britain overall, the above ratio more than doubled over the study period, as a consequence of falling numbers of new awards for musculoskeletal disorders. The extent to which the ratio increased was smallest in London (50%) and South-East England (56%), and was progressively larger in more northerly regions (>150% in North-East England and Scotland). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in trends between regions seem too large to be explained by differential changes in working conditions, patterns of employment or the rigour with which claims were assessed. An alternative explanation could be that the main driver for the trends has been culturally determined changes in health beliefs and expectations, and that these cultural changes began in London and the South-East, only later spreading to other parts of Britain.
BACKGROUND: Since the early 1990s, rates of incapacity benefit (IB) in Britain for musculoskeletal complaints have declined, and they have been overtaken by mental and behavioural disorders as the main reason for award of IB. AIMS: To explore reasons for this change. METHODS: Using data supplied by the Department for Work and Pensions, we analysed trends in the ratio of new IB awards for mental and behavioural disorders to those for musculoskeletal disorders during 1997-2007 by Government region. RESULTS: In Great Britain overall, the above ratio more than doubled over the study period, as a consequence of falling numbers of new awards for musculoskeletal disorders. The extent to which the ratio increased was smallest in London (50%) and South-East England (56%), and was progressively larger in more northerly regions (>150% in North-East England and Scotland). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in trends between regions seem too large to be explained by differential changes in working conditions, patterns of employment or the rigour with which claims were assessed. An alternative explanation could be that the main driver for the trends has been culturally determined changes in health beliefs and expectations, and that these cultural changes began in London and the South-East, only later spreading to other parts of Britain.
Authors: Judith Brown; Phil Hanlon; Ivan Turok; David Webster; James Arnott; Ewan B Macdonald Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2008-10-30 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Silje Endresen Reme; Astrid Louise Grasdal; Camilla Løvvik; Stein Atle Lie; Simon Øverland Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Suzanne Lokman; Danielle Volker; Moniek C Zijlstra-Vlasveld; Evelien Pm Brouwers; Brigitte Boon; Aartjan Tf Beekman; Filip Smit; Christina M Van der Feltz-Cornelis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Svetlana Solovieva; Taina Leinonen; Kirsti Husgafvel-Pursiainen; Antti Kauhanen; Pekka Vanhala; Rita Asplund; Eira Viikari-Juntura Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.390