Dataset Information

Predicting the duration of sickness absence due to knee osteoarthritis: a prognostic model developed in a population-based cohort in Sweden.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Predicting the duration of sickness absence (SA) among sickness absent patients is a task many sickness certifying physicians as well as social insurance officers struggle with. Our aim was to develop a prediction model for prognosticating the duration of SA due to knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

A population-based prospective study of SA spells was conducted using comprehensive microdata linked from five Swedish nationwide registers. All 12,098 new SA spells > 14 days due to knee osteoarthritis in 1/1 2010 through 30/6 2012 were included for individuals 18-64 years. The data was split into a development dataset (70 %, n_spells =8468) and a validation data set (n_spells =3690) for internal validation. Piecewise-constant hazards regression was performed to prognosticate the duration of SA (overall duration and duration > 90, >180, or > 365 days). Possible predictors were selected based on the log-likelihood loss when excluding them from the model.

Results

Of all SA spells, 53 % were > 90 days and 3 % >365 days. Factors included in the final model were age, sex, geographical region, extent of sickness absence, previous sickness absence, history of specialized outpatient healthcare and/or inpatient healthcare, employment status, and educational level. The model was well calibrated. Overall, discrimination was poor (c = 0.53, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.54). For predicting SA > 90 days, discrimination as measured by AUC was 0.63 (95 % CI 0.61-0.65), for > 180 days, 0.69 (95 % CI 0.65-0.71), and for SA > 365 days, AUC was 0.75 (95 % CI 0.72-0.78).

Conclusion

It was possible to predict patients at risk of long-term SA (> 180 days) with acceptable precision. However, the prediction of duration of SA spells due to knee osteoarthritis has room for improvement.

SUBMITTER: Holm J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254363 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs vaccines for COVID-19 became available, many countries introduced an obligation in 2021 for employees to prove their COVID-19 status at work, known in Germany as the 3G rule (vaccinated, recovered, tested). In view of the controversial debate, there was concern that employees might try to avoid providing mandatory COVID-19 certificates by taking sick leave. The aim of this study was to investigate whether mandatory COVID-19 tests in the workplace led to such an evasive response.MethodFor an empirical panel analysis, we collected data from official sources and combined aggregated health insurance data on sick leave, epidemiological data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections, and vaccination rates for the German states from September 2021 to January 2022. We used a regional panel data analysis to estimate the impact of the mandatory COVID-19 certificates at the workplace on workers' sick leave. The regional vaccination rate reflected differences in treatment intensity.ResultsThis study contributes to the limited evidence on the potential impact of introducing mandatory COVID-19 certificates at the workplace on sickness absence rates. In fact, our results showed that after controlling for infection rates, a one percentage point lower vaccination rate led to a 0.021 percentage point increase in the sickness absence rate when the 3G rule came into effect. This effect was measured with high statistical precision. In addition, in robustness checks, we controlled for a number of other possible influencing factors that may have affected sickness behaviours, such as time-varying labour market situations. However, the results remained robust.ConclusionsThe results of our empirical panel analysis implied that mandatory COVID-19 certificates in the workplace led to evasive responses and to additional days of sick leave of a relevant magnitude. Testing obligations were meant to help contain the epidemic. However, when introducing controversial obligations, it is important to consider evasive responses and to design the rules appropriately and communicate them convincingly.