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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix 4: Fit for Work Europe 90 Fit for Work is an initiative based on ground breaking studies, conducted across more than 30 countries in Europe and beyond, which examined the impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on individuals’ ability to work and, therefore, the impact on economies and society as a whole. In September 2010, The Work Foundation 1 published research which demonstrated that improvements in early intervention, treatment and return to work practices could help people of working age, with even severe MSDs, stay in work. It found that there were often real health benefits associated with staying in, or returning to, work but that many employers, clinicians and even employees felt that temporary or permanent withdrawal from employment was the only option. In the UK lost working time attributable to MSDs cost the economy £7 billion in 2007. The European report, Fit for Work: Musculoskeletal disorders in the European workforce, achieved wide press and media coverage and informed the evolution of government thinking on the issue of early intervention. Using secondary data sources, interviews with in-country experts and findings from the most recent clinical and economic literature, the study strives to: 1. Examine early intervention practices across the European Union and beyond with respect to a number of MSDs (chronic low back pain, work-related upper limb disorders, rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathies). 2. Estimate the economic and social costs and benefits of early intervention and condition management, with specific reference to improvements in labour market participation. 3. Focus on, in more detail, early intervention, condition management and rehabilitation practices highlighting – and attempting to account for – international differences in both practice and outcome. 4. Produce an accessible report of findings which can be used to positively contribute to both policy and practice in the EU and national level, which can be disseminated through conference presentations and papers. 1 The Work Foundation is a UK not-for-profit organisation and independent authority providing advice, consultancy and research on the future of work, improving the quality of working life, leadership, economic and organisational effectiveness. The foundation works with government, business organisations, the public sector, and not-for-profit institutions. It operates with opinion formers, policy makers and partner organisations through forums and networks, consultations and publications. Since 2010 the Work Foundation is part of Lancaster University Fit For Work?
The aim of the project is to stimulate and develop debate, policy and practice in the European countries and to ensure that the early diagnosis and treatment of workers with MSDs takes into account the positive health impact of high quality employment on rehabilitation, and in some cases, recovery. More information can be found on the Fit for Work Europe website http://www.fitforworkeurope.eu FFW Coalition Appendix 4: Fit for Work Europe In September 2010, the Fit for Work Europe Coalition was launched in Brussels. This platform serves as a wide and representative dissemination network across policy audiences and stakeholder groups to provide active and dedicated leadership on MSDs at European and country level. It will contribute to ensure and demonstrate that MSDs, if appropriately managed, can be a non-disabling disease, and will also recommend necessary arrangements in health care systems and the workplace to cater for those suffering from MSDs. It will also provide a dynamic forum for fresh ideas and thinking for policymakers and other actors, contributing to the overall F4W objectives: • For policymakers: ◦ To raise MSDs as EU and National public health priorities, specifically with a view to the development of national MSD plans (to be discussed later in the toolkit) and dedicated resources. • For payers: ◦ To ensure the allocation of adequate health resource and funding for early intervention and appropriate treatment in MSDs. • For health technology assessment professionals: ◦ To establish work productivity and wider clinical and societal costs as health economic evaluation targets. • For clinicians and health care professionals: ◦ To establish work productivity as a clinical outcome. • For patients and their relatives: ◦ To make the voice of MSD patients heard and to provide illustrations of best practices, which can make a difference in the lives of patients and their relatives. • For employers: ◦ To promote policies that allow for reasonable workplace accommodations for workers with MSDs to maximise employees workability and wellbeing. Fit For Work? 91
Page 1 and 2:
Fit For Work? Rosemary Thomas Kseni
Page 3 and 4:
Contents 1. Executive summary 5 2.
Page 5 and 6:
1. Executive summary The ‘Fit for
Page 7 and 8:
What can be done? Executive summary
Page 9 and 10:
Executive summary We have found imp
Page 11 and 12:
Increasing work intensity is a very
Page 13 and 14:
2.2 MSDs: The European context Intr
Page 15 and 16:
2.4 A note on definition Introducti
Page 17 and 18:
2.5 Structure of the report Introdu
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 3.1. Number of MSDs inpatien
Page 21 and 22:
• Stamina and resilience; • Cog
Page 23 and 24:
Work and MSDs in Bulgaria It is imp
Page 25 and 26:
of RA and specific leukocyte antige
Page 27 and 28:
injuries or back pain 15 ; Sieper,
Page 29 and 30:
2001). The study also found that fo
Page 31 and 32:
• Local or whole-body exposure to
Page 33 and 34:
workers of developing rheumatoid ar
Page 35 and 36:
3.4 The wider economic and social i
Page 37 and 38:
Work and MSDs in Bulgaria Direct co
Page 39 and 40: presented in the Table 3.3 below. T
Page 41 and 42: 3.5 Summary Work and MSDs in Bulgar
Page 43 and 44: Job retention and return to work pr
Page 45 and 46: 4.2 The social security regime for
Page 47 and 48: Further indirect costs of disabilit
Page 49 and 50: 4.3 Conditionspecific interventions
Page 51 and 52: RA in Bulgaria who receive biologic
Page 53 and 54: Interventions Since it was first pr
Page 55 and 56: apart from norms of shift work. 43
Page 57 and 58: Box 2. Case Study - EPIQ Electronic
Page 59 and 60: the beliefs that both parties have
Page 61 and 62: 4.6 Summary 4.5.4 Improved employer
Page 63 and 64: 5.1 Recommendations for employers 5
Page 65 and 66: 5.3 Recommendations for GPs and spe
Page 67 and 68: Conclusions and recommendations •
Page 69 and 70: Breen, A., Langworthy, J. and Bagus
Page 71 and 72: der Tempel, H. and van der Linden,
Page 73 and 74: Guzman, J., Esmail, R., Karjalainen
Page 75 and 76: References Nachemson, A., Waddell,
Page 77 and 78: Waddell, G. and Burton, A. K., (200
Page 79 and 80: Appendix 2: Sample ‘Fit’ Note S
Page 81 and 82: Sources: Eurostat Statistical Datab
Page 83 and 84: Sources: Parent-Thirion, Fernández
Page 85 and 86: Hourly labour costs 2007 Average ho
Page 87 and 88: % sickness absence due to health re
Page 89: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid Refer
Page 93 and 94: Appendix 4: Fit for Work Europe Wha
Page 96: We provide: Research Advisory Consu
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?