4.3 Article

Predictors of disability pension over a 10-year period for men and women

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 78-85

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14034940600858474

关键词

disability; disability retirement; gender difference; lifestyle; longitudinal study; smoking; work environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The number of people leaving the labour market with a disability pension is high and knowledge regarding risk factors is limited. The aim of this study was to explore work- and non-work-related predictors of disability pension among men and women and to estimate to what extent the gender difference in retirement rate could be explained by factors in and outside work. Methods: A random sample of 5,940 employees registered in the Danish National Work Environment Cohort Study in 1995 was followed up with regard to labour market status in 2005 using the DREAM register, which contains data on all social transfer payments in the Danish population. Associations between disability pension and measures of ergonomic and psychosocial work environment, public employment, family status, and lifestyle were analysed by Cox regression and the difference in retirement rates adjusted separately for each group of variables. Results: The results showed (a) that both men and women had a higher risk of disability pension when they had work that involved standing or if they smoked; (b) that women in addition had a higher likelihood if they were public employees, had low job security, or low social support at work; (c) that the higher rate of disability pension among women compared with men could not be explained by work environmental factors, lifestyle, or family situation. Public employment was the single factor that explained most of the difference. Conclusions: Gender differences in exposures and predictors of disability pension were found, but few explanations of the higher rate of disability pension among women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据