21.02.2013 Views

FfW Bulgarian report (English language) - Fit for Work Europe

FfW Bulgarian report (English language) - Fit for Work Europe

FfW Bulgarian report (English language) - Fit for Work Europe

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Interventions<br />

50<br />

medicalising’ their condition. The limitations imposed by sick notes, statutory sick leave and<br />

<strong>for</strong>malised return to work programmes may serve to rein<strong>for</strong>ce the ‘illness’ of the patient and<br />

can tie employers hands. Based on evidence that psychosocial factors are a determinant<br />

of chronicity and disability in those with back pain, there is a strong argument <strong>for</strong> reconceptualising<br />

this condition and its treatment, which has important lessons <strong>for</strong> other types of<br />

non-specific musculoskeletal pain (Burton, 2005).<br />

Waddell and Burton (2006b) summarise the challenge neatly in their work on vocational<br />

rehabilitation. They point out that, whilst many non-specific MSDs do not have clearly defined<br />

clinical features and have a high prevalence among the working age population, most episodes<br />

resolve themselves and most people with these conditions remain at work or return to work very<br />

quickly. In their view, a focus on incapacity alone can be unhelpful:<br />

‘..the question is not what makes some people develop long-term incapacity, but why<br />

do some people with common health problems not recover as expected? It is<br />

now widely accepted that biopsychosocial factors contribute to the development and<br />

maintenance of chronic pain and disability. Crucially, they may also act as obstacles<br />

to recovery and return to work. The logic of rehabilitation then shifts from dealing with<br />

residual impairment to addressing the biopsychosocial obstacles that delay or<br />

prevent expected recovery.’ (Waddell and Burton, 2006b, p.7) [bold in original text]<br />

4.3.2 Rheumatoid arthritis<br />

The importance of effective and early treatment of RA in reducing joint damage and disability is<br />

now widely acknowledged (Pugner, Scott, Holmes and Hieke, 2000). Since there is currently no<br />

‘cure’ <strong>for</strong> RA, the focus of treatment is on controlling signs and symptoms, enabling the patient<br />

to manage their condition and improving quality of life. Medical treatments <strong>for</strong> RA are directed<br />

at suppressing one or other part of the joint damaging processes, the effectiveness of which<br />

has improved in recent years. Since it is well documented that the functional capabilities of RA<br />

patients will decline over time, it is critical that patients should be treated as quickly as possible<br />

with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS) to control symptoms and disease<br />

progression (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), 2000). One study found that<br />

there is a 73 per cent risk of erosive damage in patients who wait over a year between symptom<br />

onset and referral to rheumatology clinics (Irvine, 1999 in Luqmani, Hennell, Estrach, Birrell,<br />

Bosworth et al., 2006).<br />

Growing clinical evidence demonstrates that anti-TNF drug therapies can have a more powerful<br />

effect on RA than DMARDs, especially in improving job retention and work participation<br />

(Halpern, Cifaldi, and Kvien, 2008). However, figures show that the proportion of people with<br />

<strong>Fit</strong> For <strong>Work</strong>?

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!