Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 763–771 | Cite as

Labour Market Participation After Emergency Laparotomy: A Nationwide Cohort Study with Long-Term Follow-Up

  • Lau Caspar ThygesenEmail author
  • Ismail Gögenur
Original Scientific Report (including Papers Presented at Surgical Conferences)

Abstract

Background

Many patients who undergo emergency laparotomy are working, which is a key determinant for an individual’s socio-economic status and financial security. The objectives of this study were to compare labour market participation and sick leave in a nationwide patient population undergoing non-malignant emergency resections with a matched reference population.

Methods

This nationwide prospective cohort study included all patients aged 18+ years undergoing emergency laparotomy for non-malignant disease resulting in intestinal resections, ostomy or drainage at Danish hospitals 2003–2014 and who were active on the labour market (n = 2895). We included a sex- and age-matched reference population (n = 11,422) and followed all persons in nationwide registers. We used survival analyses and logistic regression.

Results

The proportion of people active in the labour market was 85% and 66% 1 and 2 years after surgery compared to 96% and 79% among the reference population. The hazard ratio of dropout was 1.15 (95% CI 1.05–1.25, p = 0.002) among patients compared to reference population. Increased dropout was observed for disability pension (2.58; 2.14–3.11; p < 0.0001), while patients did not have increased rate of age-related pensions. The proportion on sick leave was 66% the month following surgery compared to 3–4% among references. The proportion decreased thereafter but was higher up to 3 years after surgery.

Conclusions

This nationwide study including all patients undergoing resections demonstrated marked increase in disability pensioning and sick leave after surgery compared to a matched reference group. This supports the need for interventions and programmes during hospital stay and after discharge focusing on labour market participation.

Notes

Funding

This study received grants from Frimodt-Heinecke fonden and Fabrikant Frands Køhler Nielsens og Hustrus mindelegat. The funders had no influence on study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation or publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Awad S, Herrod PJ, Palmer R et al (2012) One- and two-year outcomes and predictors of mortality following emergency laparotomy: a consecutive series from a United Kingdom teaching hospital. World J Surg 36:2060–2067.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1614-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saunders DI, Murray D, Pichel AC et al (2012) Variations in mortality after emergency laparotomy: the first report of the UK Emergency Laparotomy Network. Br J Anaesth 109:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allvin R, Berg K, Idvall E et al (2007) Postoperative recovery: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 57:552–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhalla A, Williams JP, Hurst NG et al (2014) One-third of patients fail to return to work 1 year after surgery for colorectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 18:1153–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jakobsen DH, Andersen J (2009) Convalescence and sick leave after colonic surgery. Ugeskr Laeger 171:2907–2910 (in Danish) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon L, Lynch BM, Newman B (2008) Transitions in work participation after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Aust N Z J Public Health 32:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van den Brink M, van den Hout WB, Kievit J et al (2005) The impact of diagnosis and treatment of rectal cancer on paid and unpaid labor. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1875–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanchez KM, Richardson JL, Mason HR (2004) The return to work experiences of colorectal cancer survivors. AAOHN J 52:500–510Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlsen K, Harling H, Pedersen J et al (2013) The transition between work, sickness absence and pension in a cohort of Danish colorectal cancer survivors. BMJ Open 3:e002259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pedersen CB (2011) The Danish civil registration system. Scand J Public Health 39:22–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M (2011) The Danish national patient register. Scand J Public Health 39:30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmidt M, Schmidt SA, Sandegaard JL et al (2015) The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 7:449–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harboe KM, Anthonsen K, Bardram L (2009) Validation of data and indicators in the Danish Cholecystectomy Database. Int J Qual Health Care 21:160–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kjaergaard J, Clemmensen IH, Thomsen BL et al (2002) Validity of diagnoses of and operations for nonmalignant gynecological conditions in the Danish National Hospital Registry. J Clin Epidemiol 55:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thygesen LC, Daasnes C, Thaulow I et al (2011) Introduction to Danish (nationwide) registers on health and social issues: structure, access, legislation, and archiving. Scand J Public Health 39:12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petersson F, Baadsgaard M, Thygesen LC (2011) Danish registers on personal labour market affiliation. Scand J Public Health 39:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jensen VM, Rasmussen AW (2011) Danish education registers. Scand J Public Health 39:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baadsgaard M, Quitzau J (2011) Danish registers on personal income and transfer payments. Scand J Public Health 39:103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansen K, Andersen JS, Mikkelsen S et al (2008) Controlling sickness absence: a study of changes in the Danish sickness absence legislation since 1973. Health Policy 86:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thygesen SK, Christiansen CF, Christensen S et al (2011) The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson comorbidity index conditions in the population-based Danish National Registry of Patients. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2014) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 12:1495–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    VanDenKerkhof EG, Hopman WM, Reitsma ML et al (2012) Chronic pain, healthcare utilization, and quality of life following gastrointestinal surgery. Can J Anaesth 59:670–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jeppesen M, Tolstrup MB, Gogenur I (2016) Chronic pain, quality of life, and functional impairment after surgery due to small bowel obstruction. World J Surg 40:2091–2097.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3616-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torp S, Gudbergsson SB, Dahl AA et al (2011) Social support at work and work changes among cancer survivors in Norway. Scand J Public Health 39:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Varekamp I, van Dijk FJ (2010) Workplace problems and solutions for employees with chronic diseases. Occup Med (Lond) 60:287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Boer AG, Taskila TK, Tamminga SJ, et al (2015) Interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD007569Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thygesen LC, Ersboll AK (2014) When the entire population is the sample: strengths and limitations in register-based epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 29:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkCopenhagen KDenmark
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryZealand University HospitalKøgeDenmark
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical MedicineCopenhagen University and Danish Colorectal Cancer GroupCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations