Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"The publication will discuss physiological changes that occur with age and that influence work performance. It will present the concept of applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), in order to assess the work ability of people with disabilities. It shows by examples and case studies that practical activities aimed at appropriate working conditions for people of advanced age, with health issues, and with disabilities, will have excellent work ability\"-- Provided by publisher.

Measurement of the global burden of disease with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) requires disability weights that quantify health losses for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. There has been extensive debate about a range of conceptual and methodological issues concerning the definition and measurement of these weights. Our primary objective was a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach. We surveyed respondents in two ways: household surveys of adults aged 18 years or older (face-to-face interviews in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania; telephone interviews in the USA) between Oct 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010; and an open-access web-based survey between July 26, 2010, and May 16, 2011. The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different, randomly selected health states and indicated which person they regarded as healthier. The web survey added questions about population health equivalence, which compared the overall health benefits of different life-saving or disease-prevention programmes. We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analysis on all 220 unique states in the study. We used results from the population health equivalence responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0 (implying no loss of health) to 1 (implying a health loss equivalent to death). Additionally, we compared new disability weights with those used in WHO's most recent update of the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2004. 13 902 individuals participated in household surveys and 16 328 in the web survey. Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of consistency across surveys: correlations between individual survey results and results from analysis of the pooled dataset were 0·9 or higher in all surveys except in Bangladesh (r=0·75). Most of the 220 disability weights were located on the mild end of the severity scale, with 58 (26%) having weights below 0·05. Five (11%) states had weights below 0·01, such as mild anaemia, mild hearing or vision loss, and secondary infertility. The health states with the highest disability weights were acute schizophrenia (0·76) and severe multiple sclerosis (0·71). We identified a broad pattern of agreement between the old and new weights (r=0·70), particularly in the moderate-to-severe range. However, in the mild range below 0·2, many states had significantly lower weights in our study than previously. This study represents the most extensive empirical effort as yet to measure disability weights. By contrast with the popular hypothesis that disability assessments vary widely across samples with different cultural environments, we have reported strong evidence of highly consistent results. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The United States Social Security Administration (SSA) administers two disability programs: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), for disabled individuals, and their dependent family members, who have worked and contributed to the Social Security trust funds, and Supplemental Security Income (SSSI), which is a means-tested program based on income and financial assets for adults aged 65 years or older and disabled adults and children. Both programs require that claimants have a disability and meet specific medical criteria in order to qualify for benefits. SSA establishes the presence of a medically-determined impairment in individuals with mental disorders other than intellectual disability through the use of standard diagnostic criteria, which include symptoms and signs. These impairments are established largely on reports of signs and symptoms of impairment and functional limitation. Psychological Testing in the Service of Disability Determination considers the use of psychological tests in evaluating disability claims submitted to the SSA. This report critically reviews selected psychological tests, including symptom validity tests, that could contribute to SSA disability determinations. The report discusses the possible uses of such tests and their contribution to disability determinations. Psychological Testing in the Service of Disability Determination discusses testing norms, qualifications for administration of tests, administration of tests, and reporting results. The recommendations of this report will help SSA improve the consistency and accuracy of disability determination in certain cases.

Background Assessing prognosis is challenging for many physicians in various medical fields. Research shows that physicians who perform disability assessments consider six areas when evaluating a prognosis: disease, treatment, course of the disease, external information, patient-related and physician-related aspects. We administered a questionnaire to evaluate how physicians rate the importance of these six prognosis areas during work disability evaluation and to explore what kind of support they would like during prognosis assessment. Methods Seventy-six physicians scored the importance of 23 prognostic aspects distributed over six prognosis areas. Participants scored the importance of each aspect both “in general” and from the perspective of a case vignette of a worker with a severe degenerative disease. The questionnaire also covered needs and suggestions for support during the evaluation of prognoses. Results Medical areas that are related to the disease, or the treatment or course of the disease, appeared important (scores of 7.0–9.0), with less differing opinions among participants (IQR 1.0–3.0). Corresponding verbatim remarks supported the importance of disease and treatment as prognostic aspects. In comparison, patient- and physician-related aspects scored somewhat lower, with more variability (range 4.0–8.0, with IQR 2.0–5.0 for patient- and physician-related considerations). Participants indicated a need for a tool or online database that includes prognostic aspects and prognostic evidence. Conclusions Despite some variation in scores, the physicians rated all six prognosis areas as important for work disability evaluations. This study provides suggested aids to prognosis assessment, including an online support tool based on evidence-based medicine features.

The U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to disabled adults and children, offering vital financial support to more than 19 million disabled Americans. Of that group, approximately 5.5 million have been deemed - by virtue of youth or mental or physical impairment - incapable of managing or directing the management of their benefits. Hence, a representative payee has been appointed to receive and disburse SSA payments for these beneficiaries to ensure that their basic needs for shelter, food, and clothing are met. Periodically, however, concerns have been expressed about the accuracy of the process by which SSA determines whether beneficiaries are capable of managing their benefits, with some evidence suggesting that underdetection of incapable recipients may be a particular problem. The importance of creating as accurate a process as possible for incapability determinations is underscored by the consequences of incorrectly identifying recipients either as incapable when they can manage their benefits or as capable when they cannot. Failure to identify beneficiaries who are incapable of managing their funds means abandoning a vulnerable population to potential homelessness, hunger, and disease. Informing Social Security's Process for Financial Capability Determination considers capability determination processes used by other similar benefit programs, abilities required to manage, and direct the management of, benefits, and effective methods and measures for assessing capability. This report evaluates SSA's capability determination process for adult beneficiaries and provides recommendations for improving the accuracy and efficiency of the agency's policy and procedures for making these determinations.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits to disabled persons of less than full retirement age and to their dependents. SSA also provides Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to disabled persons who are under age 65. For both programs, disability is defined as a \"medically determinable physical or mental impairment\" that prevents an individual from engaging in any substantial gainful activity and is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death. Assuming that an applicant meets the nonmedical requirements for eligibility (e.g., quarters of covered employment for SSDI; income and asset limits for SSI), the file is sent to the Disability Determination Services (DDS) agency operated by the state in which he or she lives for a determination of medical eligibility. SSA reimburses the states for the full costs of the DDSs. The DDSs apply a sequential decision process specified by SSA to make an initial decision whether a claim should be allowed or denied. If the claim is denied, the decision can be appealed through several levels of administrative and judicial review. On average, the DDSs allow 37 percent of the claims they adjudicate through the five-step process. A third of those denied decide to appeal, and three-quarters of the appeals result in allowances. Nearly 30 percent of the allowances made each year are made during the appeals process after an initial denial. In 2003, the Commissioner of Social Security announced her intent to develop a \"new approach\" to disability determination. In late 2004, SSA asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help in two areas related to its initiatives to improve the disability decision process: 1) Improvements in the criteria for determining the severity of impairments, and 2) Improvements in the use of medical expertise in the disability decision process. This interim report provides preliminary recommendations addressing the three tasks that relate to medical expertise issues, with a special focus on the appropriate qualifications of medical and psychological experts involved in disability decision making. After further information gathering and analyses of the effectiveness of the disability decision process in identifying those who qualify for benefits and those who do not, the committee may refine its recommendations concerning medical and psychological expertise in the final report. The final report will address a number of issues with potential implications for the qualifications of the medical experts involved in the disability decision process.