The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Common mental disorders and disability pension award: Seven year follow-up of the HUSK study
Abstract
Objective Rates of disability pension (DP) awards remain high in most developed countries. We aimed to estimate the impact of anxiety and depression on DPs awarded both for mental and for physical diagnoses and to estimate the relative contribution of sub case-level anxiety and depression compared with case-level symptom loads.Methods Information from a large cohort study on mental and physical health in individuals aged 40-46 (N=15,288) was linked to a comprehensive national database of disability benefits. Case-level and sub case-level anxiety and depression were defined as scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale of >or=8 and 5-7, respectively. The outcome was incident award of a DP (including ICD-10 diagnosis) during 1-7-year follow-up.Results DP awards for all diagnoses were predicted both from case-level anxiety [HR 1.90 (95% CI 1.50-2.41)], case-level depression [HR 2.44 (95% CI 1.65-3.59] and comorbid anxiety and depression [HR 4.92 (95% CI 3.94-6.15)] at baseline. These effects were only partly accounted for by adjusting for baseline somatic symptoms and diagnoses. Anxiety and depression also predicted awards for physical diagnoses [HR 3.26 (95% CI 2.46-4.32)]. The population attributable fractions (PAF) of sub case-level anxiety and depression symptom loads were comparable to those from case-level symptom loads (PAF anxiety 0.07 versus 0.11, PAF depression 0.05 versus 0.06).Conclusion The long-term occupational impact of symptoms of anxiety and depression is currently being underestimated. Sub case-level symptom loads of anxiety and depression make an important and previously unmeasured contribution to DP awards.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Knudsen, A. K., Øverland, S., Aakvaag, H. F., Harvey, S. B., Hotopf, M., & Mykletun, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Bergen (NO)
- King's College London (GB)
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Knudsen, Ann Kristin
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-07
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-67
- ISSN
- 0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131389657
- Cited by
- 115
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 24.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Retirement, Disability, and Employment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- disability pension, anxiety, depression, common mental disorders, comorbidities, occupational impact, population attributable fraction, disability benefits
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Mental Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Disability Evaluation, Eligibility Determination, Female, Humans, Male, Norway, Pensions, Sick Role, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Insurance, Disability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review