Search

There has been limited theoretical and empirical research into the role of workplace accommodations in enabling workers with and without impairments to remain in work. This study used the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model to examine (a) whether workplace accommodations enable workers, particularly those with different impairments, to remain economically active; and (b) the predictors of the onset of work accommodations. Data from two waves of a large-scale longitudinal survey of disability in Great Britain, the Life Opportunities Survey (2009-2012) were analysed. 2307 workers with an impairment and 4308 workers without an impairment were followed up for a year. Work accommodations appear to enable workers with impairments to remain economically active, especially those with mental impairments. There was no difference in the employment rates of workers with and without mental impairments who had two or more work accommodations, in contrast to the 10% employment gap between workers with and without mental impairments who did not have any work accommodations. While there was no gender difference in the disability employment gap, barriers to employment related to caregiving were much greater for women compared to men. Moreover, only workers with incident pain impairments were associated with an increase in their work accommodations, not workers with incident mental impairments. Despite the evidence that workers with mental impairments could benefit considerably from workplace accommodations, they are less likely to have their workplace adjusted. The ICF model is particularly useful in analysing the role of work accommodations because it considers a much wider range of factors that are relevant not just to workers with different types of impairments, but are also relevant to the wider group of workers who use workplace accommodations.

This study aims to evaluate whether the pattern of socioeconomic inequalities in physical and mental functioning as measured by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) differs among employees in Britain, Finland, and Japan and whether work characteristics contribute to some of the health inequalities. The participants were 7340 (5122 men and 2218 women) British employees, 2297 (1638 men and 659 women) Japanese employees, and 8164 (1649 men and 6515 women) Finnish employees. All the participants were civil servants aged 40–60 years. Both male and female low grade employees had poor physical functioning in all cohorts. British and Japanese male low grade employees tended to have poor mental functioning but the associations were significant only for Japanese men. No consistent employment-grade differences in mental functioning were observed among British and Japanese women. Among Finnish men and women, high grade employees had poor mental functioning. In all cohorts, high grade employees had high control, high demands and long work hours. The grade differences in poor physical functioning and disadvantaged work characteristics among non-manual workers were somewhat smaller in the Finnish cohort than in the British and Japanese cohorts. Low control, high demands, and both short and long work hours were associated with poor functioning. When work characteristics were adjusted for, the socioeconomic differences in poor functioning were mildly attenuated in men, but the differences increased slightly in women. This study reconfirms the generally observed pattern of socioeconomic inequalities in health for physical functioning but not for mental functioning. The role of work characteristics in the relationship between socioeconomic status and health differed between men and women but was modest overall. We suggest that these differences in the pattern and magnitude of grade differences in work characteristics and health among the 3 cohorts may be attributable to the different welfare regimes among the 3 countries.

Although there has been considerable research on psychosocial working conditions and their effect on physical and mental health, there has been little research into the effects of psychosocial domestic conditions on health. The association between psychosocial working conditions (and control at work in particular) and coronary heart disease (CHD) is not as strong for women compared to men. Other research suggests that household and domestic factors may have an important effect on women's health. Some studies have shown that low control at home affects psychological well being. However, there has been little research into its effects on physical health. Furthermore, similar to results analysing low control at work, low control at home may form part of the pathways underlying social inequalities in health. The study investigates the meaning of control at home, the effect of control at home on incident CHD events and whether this explains some of the social inequalities in CHD events in men and women. Data from phases 3-5 of the Whitehall II study, London, UK, were analysed (N = 7470). The results indicate that low control at home predicts CHD among women but not among men. Furthermore, low control at home may explain part of the association between household social position and CHD among women. There is some evidence suggesting that low control at home among women results from a lack of material and psychological resources to cope with excessive household and family demands. Psychosocial domestic conditions may have a greater effect on the health of women compared with men.

Social class differences in health in the UK have usually been demonstrated by the Registrar General's social classification (RGSC). It is being replaced by the new UK National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC). The NS-SEC is explicitly based on differences between employment relations and conditions. The mechanisms underlying social class differences in health remain debatable. Some studies have hypothesised that class differences in work characteristics and employment conditions may explain part of the observed class differences in health. This study investigates the associations of the NS-SEC and other measures of socio-economic status (SES) with mortality outcomes in a 7-year panel study representative of British private households and their members (the British Household Panel Survey, n = 10264). The NS-SEC was neither significantly associated with mortality for respondents of all ages nor with mortality for a younger subsample who were under 65 years at the initial survey. Other measures of SES, especially income and housing tenure showed significant patterns of inequalities in mortality. It may be useful to use other measures of SES along with the NS-SEC when analysing social inequalities in health and mortality.

The British Registrar General's Social Classification has been strongly criticised for its lack of explanatory value. Furthermore, studies of social inequality in coronary heart disease (CHD) outcomes have often found associations between measures of inequality and heart disease unaccounted by conventional CHD risk factors. Alternative occupational classifications such as the Erikson-Goldthorpe schema and the Cambridge scale could be used to explore potential causal narratives which explain such residual associations. Results from a longitudinal study of adults in Britain show that the Cambridge scale has the strongest association with CHD and part of its strength is due to its strong association with CHD related health behaviours. Women classified by their partner's occupation had stronger associations with CHD compared to classifications by their own occupation. Job strain may not account for the observed social inequalities in CHD. The Cambridge scale shows stronger patterns of linear association with CHD than the RGSC and should be included in other studies of social inequality in health in the U.K.