Cargando…

Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles

BACKGROUND: Assessments for long-term incapacity for work are performed by Social Insurance Physicians (SIPs) who rely on interviews with claimants as an important part of the process. These interviews are susceptible to bias. In the Netherlands three protocols have been developed to conduct these i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Boer, Wout EL, Wind, Haije, van Dijk, Frank JH, Willems, Han HBM
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19490614
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-169
_version_ 1782168425264578560
author de Boer, Wout EL
Wind, Haije
van Dijk, Frank JH
Willems, Han HBM
author_facet de Boer, Wout EL
Wind, Haije
van Dijk, Frank JH
Willems, Han HBM
author_sort de Boer, Wout EL
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Assessments for long-term incapacity for work are performed by Social Insurance Physicians (SIPs) who rely on interviews with claimants as an important part of the process. These interviews are susceptible to bias. In the Netherlands three protocols have been developed to conduct these interviews. These protocols are expert- and practice-based. We studied to what extent these protocols are adhered to by practitioners. METHODS: We compared the protocols with one another and with the ICF and the biopsychosocial approach. The protocols describe semi-structured interviews with comparable but not identical topics. All protocols prescribe that the client's opinion on his capacity for work, and his arguments, need to be determined and assessed. We developed a questionnaire to elicit the adherence SIPs have to the protocols, their underlying principles and topics. We conducted a survey among one hundred fifty-five experienced SIPs in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Ninety-eight SIPs responded (64%). All respondents used some form of protocol, either one of the published protocols or their own mix. We found no significant relation between training and the use of a particular protocol. Ninety percent use a semi-structured interview. Ninety-five percent recognise having to verify what the claimant says and eighty-three percent feel the need to establish a good relation (p = 0.019). Twelve topics are basically always addressed by over eighty percent of the respondents. The claimant's opinion of being fit for his own work or other work, and his claim of incapacity and his health arguments for that claim, reach a hundred percent. Description of claimants' previous work reaches ninety-nine percent. CONCLUSION: Our study shows professional consensus among experienced Dutch SIPs about the principle of assessment on arguments, the principle of conducting a semi-structured interview and the most crucial interview topics. This consensus can be used to further develop a protocol for interviewing in the assessment of incapacity for work in social insurance. Such a protocol can improve the quality of the assessments in terms of transparency and reproducibility, as well as by enabling clients to better prepare themselves for the assessments.
format Text
id pubmed-2698854
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26988542009-06-19 Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles de Boer, Wout EL Wind, Haije van Dijk, Frank JH Willems, Han HBM BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Assessments for long-term incapacity for work are performed by Social Insurance Physicians (SIPs) who rely on interviews with claimants as an important part of the process. These interviews are susceptible to bias. In the Netherlands three protocols have been developed to conduct these interviews. These protocols are expert- and practice-based. We studied to what extent these protocols are adhered to by practitioners. METHODS: We compared the protocols with one another and with the ICF and the biopsychosocial approach. The protocols describe semi-structured interviews with comparable but not identical topics. All protocols prescribe that the client's opinion on his capacity for work, and his arguments, need to be determined and assessed. We developed a questionnaire to elicit the adherence SIPs have to the protocols, their underlying principles and topics. We conducted a survey among one hundred fifty-five experienced SIPs in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Ninety-eight SIPs responded (64%). All respondents used some form of protocol, either one of the published protocols or their own mix. We found no significant relation between training and the use of a particular protocol. Ninety percent use a semi-structured interview. Ninety-five percent recognise having to verify what the claimant says and eighty-three percent feel the need to establish a good relation (p = 0.019). Twelve topics are basically always addressed by over eighty percent of the respondents. The claimant's opinion of being fit for his own work or other work, and his claim of incapacity and his health arguments for that claim, reach a hundred percent. Description of claimants' previous work reaches ninety-nine percent. CONCLUSION: Our study shows professional consensus among experienced Dutch SIPs about the principle of assessment on arguments, the principle of conducting a semi-structured interview and the most crucial interview topics. This consensus can be used to further develop a protocol for interviewing in the assessment of incapacity for work in social insurance. Such a protocol can improve the quality of the assessments in terms of transparency and reproducibility, as well as by enabling clients to better prepare themselves for the assessments. BioMed Central 2009-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC2698854/ /pubmed/19490614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-169 Text en Copyright © 2009 de Boer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
de Boer, Wout EL
Wind, Haije
van Dijk, Frank JH
Willems, Han HBM
Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles
title Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles
title_full Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles
title_fullStr Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles
title_full_unstemmed Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles
title_short Interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles
title_sort interviews for the assessment of long-term incapacity for work: a study on adherence to protocols and principles
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19490614
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-169
work_keys_str_mv AT deboerwoutel interviewsfortheassessmentoflongtermincapacityforworkastudyonadherencetoprotocolsandprinciples
AT windhaije interviewsfortheassessmentoflongtermincapacityforworkastudyonadherencetoprotocolsandprinciples
AT vandijkfrankjh interviewsfortheassessmentoflongtermincapacityforworkastudyonadherencetoprotocolsandprinciples
AT willemshanhbm interviewsfortheassessmentoflongtermincapacityforworkastudyonadherencetoprotocolsandprinciples