Work is good for health: a thread to post and discuss the evidence for this statement

Simbindi

Simbindi

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I thought it might be good to have a thread where members can post and discuss the 'evidence' that governments and health insurers use to promote the idea that 'work is good for health'.

This thread is for discussing the evidence for the general concept, rather than evidence specifically addressing whether work is good for people with M.E. (PWME). It would be interesting to see what is happening internationally with this agenda. I suspect members in other countries may be facing the same issues as governments and insurance companies seek to limit what they have to pay out in benefits.

We know for people with ME, that it is often not the case that work is 'good for us'. Even when a PWME is trying to work either part or full-time, there is usually a cost to their health and well-being, in addition to having to pay this 'cost' by severely curtailing other aspects of their lives.

Therefore, it may be useful to look and critique the manner in which evidence has been 'cherry picked' to try to promote the idea that work is almost always good for everyone, regardless of their health condition and circumstances.

I'm starting the thread off with the evidence the UK government uses to base its out of work benefits policies on:

It can be found here, with an 8 page 'executive summary' option:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-work-good-for-your-health-and-well-being
 
Last edited:
NICE apparently has produced guidance on 'Workplace health: long-term sickness absence and incapacity to work':

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph19

How NICE selected and used evidence to develop thier guidance is explained in the following article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047344/

The revised version of this is due to be published later this year, with a shiny new title, 'Workplace health: long-term sickness absence and capability to work' .

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-ng10090
 
Last edited:
NelliePledge said:
Is there information in the PACE papers that shows none of the trial participants returned to their previous employment? I was told the McCrone et al PLOS paper includes this information but I can’t see it. I don’t suppose it’s exactly a headline. Presumably has to be picked out of the tables.
Click to expand...

This thread is for discussing the general concept of the 'work is good for health' promotion, it is not intended to be specific to M.E. or the Pace Trial evidence - there may be a better thread to ask this question (although I understand why you would be concerned).

Edit: I realise my original post was ambiguous so I've edited it to try to clarify what I intended the thread to achieve. I wanted to collate some of the 'evidence base' that we are up against when we are trying to convince our doctors, healthcare professionals and the DWP (or private disability and health insurers) that work is not good for us (as PWME).
 
Last edited:
Snowdrop said:
You might want to state that this is a thread for UK evidence if that is the purpose.
Click to expand...

It's not specific to the UK, it's just that's where I'm from, so that's what I know about. Members from other countries may also have to face similar 'work is good for you' government and health insurance agendas, so they are welcome to add to this thread. In fact, it would be very interesting to see what is happening internationally with regard to this.

The majority of working age members in the UK who can't work depend on DWP working age sickness benefits. Some people have taken out private health insurance that might give them a private disability pension, but they are the minority. So that's the reason I have focused on the DWP and NICE in the UK. Additionally, this is of particular relevance at this point in time because of the current CFS/ME guideline review (which in turn may influence other countries).

Edit: I have edited my original post to make it clear members from all countries are welcome to contribute to this thread and also my other posts to make it clear which country the evidence has originated from.
 
Last edited:
NelliePledge said:
Is there information in the PACE papers that shows none of the trial participants returned to their previous employment? I was told the McCrone et al PLOS paper includes this information but I can’t see it. I don’t suppose it’s exactly a headline. Presumably has to be picked out of the tables.
Click to expand...
Objective evidence??! That's not, wosname, allowed! Guards! Guards! Guards!
 
Also, work is a major cause of stress for many people, and we know that stress is bad for health.
 
James Morris-Lent said:
I don't hear much in the US about work being good for health.

What you hear is 'the dignity of work' and 'people need to work to have purpose and be fulfilled', which is a different discussion.
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, in the UK it all started with the major 'Welfare Reforms', and is definitely tied in with the BPS agenda, the original IAPT and the new IAPT for Long term conditions and Medically unexplained symptoms. The more I read, the more I can see how these things have all been developing in unison, each feeding into the others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom