BackgroundScreening for mental disorders among disability claimants is important, since mental disorders seem to be seriously under-recognized in this population. However, performance of potentially suitable scales is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of three scales, the 10- and 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10, K6) and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), to predict present state mental disorders, classified according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4thEdition (DSM-IV) among disability claimants.MethodsAll scales were completed by a representative sample of persons claiming disability benefit after two years sickness absence (n=293). All diagnoses, both somatic and mental, were included. The gold standard was the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0) to diagnose present state DSM-IV disorder. Cronbach’s α, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and the areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated.ResultsCronbach’s alpha’s were 0.919 (K10), 0.882 (K6) and 0.906 (GHQ-12). The optimal cut-off scores were 24 (K10), 14 ( K6) and 20 (GHQ-12). The PPV and the NPV for the optimal cut point of the K10 was 0.53 and 0.89, for the K6 0.51 and 0.87, and for the GHQ-12 0.50 and 0.82. The AUC’s for 30-day cases were 0.806 (K10; 95% CI 0.749-0.862), 0.796 (K6; 95% CI 0.737-0.854) and 0.695 (GHQ-12; 95% CI 0.626-0.765).ConclusionsThe K10 and K6 are reliable and valid scales to screen for present state DSM-IV mental disorder. The optimal cut-off scores are 24 (K10) and 14 (K6). The GHQ-12 (optimal cut-off score: 20) is outperformed by the K10 and K6, which are to be preferred above the GHQ-12. The scores on separate items of the K10 and K6 can be used in disability assessment settings as an agenda for an in-depth follow-up clinical interview to ascertain the presence of present state mental disorder.

PurposeChronic disease is often associated with a reduced energy level, which limits the capacity to work full-time. This study aims to investigate whether the construct work endurance is part of disability assessment in European countries and what assessment procedures are used. We defined work endurance as the ability to sustain working activities for a number of hours per day and per week.Materials and methodsWe conducted a survey using two self-constructed questionnaires. We addressed 35 experts from 19 countries through the European Union of Medicine in Assurance and Social Security (EUMASS). We gathered descriptive data on various aspects of (the assessment of) work endurance.ResultsExperts from 16 countries responded. In most countries work endurance is assessed. We found few professional guidelines specific for the assessment of work endurance. Both somatic and mental diseases may cause limited work endurance. Methods to assess work endurance vary, objective methods rating as most suitable. Almost half of the countries report controversies on the assessment of work endurance.ConclusionsWork endurance is recognised and assessed as an aspect of work disability assessment in Europe. However, controversies exist and evidence based guidelines, including reliable and valid methods to assess work endurance, are lacking.

No abstract