English version - Fit for Work Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MSDs and individuals 70 7.2 MSDs: Intrinsic factors and lifestyle choices Figure 7.2. Productivity loss among informal carers 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Almost comparable to usual productivity 4-6h 10-12h 16-18h 22-29h 50-69h >90h Amount of productivity loss Mean = 11.3 hours lost MSD progression may be influenced by an array of factors. Some studies, for example, have noted that a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal pain among working women may be linked to the fact that such women are still responsible for doing the majority of housework (Punnett and Wegman, 2004). Intrinsic risk factors also have a part to play in both the onset and progression of MSDs. Some intrinsic factors can be altered; others, such as genetic predisposition, cannot. WHO (2003) suggests several intrinsic risk factors for non-specific MSDs, including: • Obesity, height; • Spinal abnormalities; • Genetic predisposition; • Pregnancy; • Psychosocial stress: self-perception; • Health beliefs: locus of control, self-efficacy, perception of disability and expectations; • Family stress; • Psychological stress: somatisation, anxiety and depression; • Ageing. 2-3h 7-9h 13-15h 19-21h 30-49h 70-89h Source: ACCJ (2011b) Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market
Japan has an older population compared with many other countries: the proportion of the population aged 65 years and over has risen from 17.4 per cent in 2000 to 23.1 per cent in 2010, and is predicted to reach 40 per cent by 2050. 29 Between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of those 80 years old and over increased from 2.7 per cent to 6.5 per cent. 30 Evidence suggests that there is a greater chance of deteriorating health – particularly higher rates of MSD prevalence – among the older cohorts of the workforce (see Figure 7.3). Prevalence of muscular pain was highest in people in their 40s (18.6 per cent), followed by those in their 30s (18.3 per cent) and 50s (17 per cent) (Nakamura et al., 2011). Figure 7.3. Health concerns of outpatients aged 65 and over Age 75 and over 31 Age 65-75 22.1% 24.30% 18.8% 17.80% 16.40% 6.60% 0.90% 7.90% 7% 30.30% 7.50% 31.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Individuals with lower socioeconomic status are found to be more likely to have arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions, which have a further detrimental impact on their quality of life. It is suggested that arthritis-related disabilities reduce opportunities for employment and higher education, which in turn decreases the likelihood of effective self-management of arthritis 29 See OECD http://stats.oecd.org/ 30 See OECD http://stats.oecd.org/ 31 See MHLW Health Statistics http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hss/hs2007.html MSDs and individuals Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue Diseases of the circulatory system Diseases of the digestive system Factors influencing health status and contact with health services Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases Others Source: MHLW Health Statistics 31 Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market 71
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 50 and 51: 6. MSDs and employers 50 6.1 Costs
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 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?