English version - Fit for Work Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. MSDs and employers 50 6.1 Costs of MSDs to organisations It is also in employers’ best interests to act early if they are to minimise costs to the health of employees and to their business through absence. Japan is quite advanced compared to other countries in addressing ill health at work: government regulations require that occupational health physicians discuss and adjust work load and environment according to employee needs. If employees have concerns about their condition they may consult a health care professional and, following referral or diagnosis, advice and planned action, a review should be conducted within four weeks. Epidemiological studies of employees whose absence is caused by low back pain have shown that the longer the sick leave, the more difficult it is to get the employee to return to work and the higher the economic cost (Frank, Sinclair, Hogg-Johnson, Shannon, Bombardier et al., 1998; Meijer, Sluiter, Heyma, Sadiraj, and Frings-Dresen, 2006). Sick leave has also been shown to have a negative psychological impact on employees (Meijer, Sluiter, and Frings-Dresen, 2005). Early intervention is therefore crucial to individual recovery and self-management, and may contribute to reducing the number of working days lost and reduced productivity caused by MSDs. There are two main types of indirect costs most commonly measured in association with ill health in employees. These are absence from work and what is termed ‘presenteeism’, or loss of productivity in an employee while they are at work with an illness or incapacity. Sickness absence attributed to musculoskeletal disorders appears to be much less common in Japan than in the UK (Matsudaira et al., 2011). However, the fact that employees commonly use holiday entitlement rather than claiming sick leave means that the actual impact of MSDs in the workplace could be underestimated. 20 Research shows that up to 30 per cent of workers with conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are reluctant to disclose their condition to their colleagues and managers out of a fear of discrimination (Gignac, Cao, Lacaille, Anis and Badley, 2008) and 22 per cent of workers do not tell their employers about their condition (Gignac, Badley, Lacaille, Cott, Adam et al., 2004). If workers continue to come to work when affected by the condition or associated pain, they are not performing to their full capacity, presenting additional safety hazard in high-risk work environments. It appears that in many cases in Japan pay is linked to attendance, which may cause some employees to refuse to take time off work due to their condition with further negative impact on employee productivity. 20 Expert interview Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market
MSDs and employers Attempts were made in Japan to estimate the level of presenteeism among employees. An ACCJ (2011b) survey of 5,000 people in Japan of 20 years of age and above reports high losses of productivity, particularly due to pain (see Figure 6.1). Figure 6.1. Productivity losses by cause Mental illness Non-infectious chronic disease Pain Infectious diseases or viral infections Physical injury or disability 15.30% 14.70% 27.10% 31.60% 55.30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source: ACCJ (2011a) For many employees their productivity was reduced for a significant proportion of their work time. On average employee productivity was affected for 11.8 hours per week in the previous month (see Figure 6.2). The same survey estimated the cost of absenteeism due to pain at over JPY 88 mln, the cost of pain-related presenteeism at JPY 52.6 mln (ACCJ, 2011b). Although there has been little further investigation into the cost of presenteeism in Japan, given that Japanese workers are traditionally reluctant to be absent from work, the burden of presenteeism may be even more significant than reported. 21 21 Expert interview Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market 51
Page 1: Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disor
Page 4 and 5: Contents 4 1. Executive summary 6 2
Page 6 and 7: 1. Executive summary 6 The ‘Fit f
Page 8 and 9: Executive summary 8 the data that i
Page 10 and 11: 2. Introduction 10 2.1 The global b
Page 12 and 13: Introduction 12 2.3 International c
Page 14 and 15: Introduction 14 2.5 Structure of th
Page 16 and 17: Work and MSDs in Japan 16 Figure 3.
Page 18 and 19: Work and MSDs in Japan 18 3.2 Defin
Page 20 and 21: Work and MSDs in Japan 20 3.3 The i
Page 22 and 23: Work and MSDs in Japan 22 average t
Page 24 and 25: Work and MSDs in Japan 24 RA affect
Page 26 and 27: Work and MSDs in Japan 26 3.3.4 Spo
Page 28 and 29: Work and MSDs in Japan 28 3.4 Summa
Page 30 and 31: MSDs and government 30 4.2 MSDs: Po
Page 32 and 33: MSDs and government 32 of good heal
Page 34 and 35: MSDs and government 34 Figure 4.1.
Page 36 and 37: MSDs and government 36 deliver bett
Page 38 and 39: 5. MSDs and health care professiona
Page 40 and 41: MSDs and health care professionals
Page 52 and 53: MSDs and employers 52 6.2 The role
Page 54 and 55: MSDs and employers 54 Occupational
Page 56 and 57: MSDs and employers 56 The most freq
Page 58 and 59: MSDs and employers 58 levels of pai
Page 60 and 61: MSDs and employers 60 • Modified
Page 62 and 63: MSDs and employers 62 Box 2. Case s
Page 64 and 65: MSDs and employers 64 lower the mor
Page 66 and 67: 7. MSDs and individuals 66 7.1 Impa
Page 68 and 69: MSDs and individuals 68 Figure 7.1.
Page 70 and 71: MSDs and individuals 70 7.2 MSDs: I
Page 72 and 73: MSDs and individuals 72 and other h
Page 74 and 75: MSDs and individuals 74 Figure 7.4.
Page 76 and 77: MSDs and individuals 76 Cont. Kaize
Page 78 and 79: MSDs and individuals 78 reported wo
Page 80 and 81: Conclusions and recommendations 80
Page 82 and 83: References 82 American Chamber of C
Page 84 and 85: References 84 Dagfinrud, H., Mengsh
Page 86 and 87: References 86 Hori, Y., Hoshino, J.
Page 88 and 89: References 88 Matsudaira, K., Hara,
Page 90 and 91: References 90 Rudwaleit, M., Gooch,
Page 92 and 93: References 92 Young, A., Dixey, J.,
Page 94 and 95: Appendix 2: Fit Note Sample 94 Sour
Page 96 and 97: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 96 So
Page 98 and 99: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 98 So
Page 100 and 101:
Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 100 O
Page 102 and 103:
Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid Refer
Page 104:
We provide: Research Advisory Consu
show all

English version - Fit for Work Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?