Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33259544›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

What is the effect of changing eligibility criteria for disability benefits on employment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from OECD countries.

Philip McHale, Andy Pennington, Cameron Mustard, Quenby Mahood, Ingelise Andersen, Natasja Koitzsch Jensen, Bo Burström, Karsten Thielen, Lisa Harber-Aschan, Ashley McAllister and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Labor market entry prospects of people with visual impairments: evidence from administrative register data in the Netherlands.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Philip McHaleDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8560-2291
Andy PenningtonDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Cameron MustardDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Quenby MahoodInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ingelise AndersenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Natasja Koitzsch JensenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bo BurströmDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karsten ThielenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lisa Harber-AschanDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ashley McAllisterDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Margaret WhiteheadDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Ben BarrDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

CIHR EWL-14428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRestrictions in the eligibility requirements for disability benefits have been introduced in many countries, on the assumption that this will increase work incentives for people with chronic illness and disabilities. Evidence to support this assumption is unclear, but there is a danger that removal of social protection without increased employment would increase the risk of poverty among disabled people. This paper presents a systematic review of the evidence on the employment effects of changes to eligibility criteria across OECD countries.

methodsSystematic review of all empirical studies from OECD countries from 1990 to June 2018 investigating the effect of changes in eligibility requirements and income replacement level of disability benefits on the employment of disabled people. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analysis was performed using meta-regression on all separate results. The systematic review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (Registration code: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018103930).

resultsSeventeen studies met inclusion criteria from seven countries. Eight investigated an expansion of eligibility criteria and nine a restriction. There were 36 separate results included from the 17 studies. Fourteen examined an expansion of eligibility; six found significantly reduced employment, eight no significant effect and one increased employment. Twenty-two results examined a restriction in eligibility for benefits; three found significantly increased employment, 18 no significant effect and one reduced employment. Meta-regression of all studies produced a relative risk of employment of 1.06 (95% CI 0.999 to 1.014; I2 77%).

conclusionsThere was no firm evidence that changes in eligibility affected employment of disabled people. Restricting eligibility therefore has the potential to lead to a growing number of people out of employment with health problems who are not eligible for adequate social protection, increasing their risk of poverty. Policymakers and researchers need to address the lack of robust evidence for assessing the employment impact of these types of welfare reforms as well as the potential wider poverty impacts.

Indexed as

Eligibility DeterminationEmploymentOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentPersons with DisabilitiesHumansOdds RatioPolicyPublication Bias

Identifiers

PMID33259544
PMCPMC7707516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.