Comparison of work-related ill-health data from different GB sources

Abstract

Background A number of data sources help inform policy decisions regarding the risk of work-related ill-health. Aims To compare self-reported and medically reported data from multiple sources and discuss their benefits and limitations in providing estimates of work-related ill-health incidence in Great Britain. Methods Sources included The Health & Occupation Reporting network (THOR & THOR-GP (THOR in General Practice)) and the survey of Self-reported Work-related Illness (SWI). Results from SWI and THOR from GPs, rheumatologists, psychiatrists, dermatologists and respiratory physicians (2006-2009) were compared. THOR-GP data also included patient referrals information. Results Overall incidence rates were highest when calculated from self-reported data, and lowest from clinical specialists. SWI rates were higher than GP rates for mental ill-health (SWI 790, GP 500 per 100 000 persons employed) and 'other' diagnoses (SWI 368, GP 41), whereas incidence rates for musculoskeletal (SWI 670, GP 684) and skin diagnoses (SWI 38, GP 152) were higher from GPs. Very few cases of musculoskeletal and mental ill-health were referred to clinical specialists (<1%). Skin (15%) and respiratory (26%) cases were referred more frequently. Case mix varied by data source. Conclusions SWI is more inclusive than THOR-GP; however, reports are unsubstantiated by medical opinion. Clinical specialist reports are subject to biases such as severity and referral patterns. GP data benefit from their inclusion of less severe cases than reports from secondary care and may give a better reflection of the incidence of diseases with a work-related aetiology unrecognized by self-reporting individuals. © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved.