Tag Archives: English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

Would reducing social inequality lead to more years of healthy life?

Across Europe, there’s good news for older people – life expectancy is on the rise and levels of disability among older people are falling. But there are concerns that a longer life may not be a better life for all. So who benefits from increased life expectancy?  Jenny Head and colleagues from the IDEAR network find those with a higher occupational status can expect the greatest number of years of healthy, disease-free life.

We know from lots of studies that there are big differences in life expectancy between different social groups. And we know that those in higher social positions tend to benefit more from that rise in healthy life expectancy.

But, given that many governments expect people to extend their working lives, we specifically need to know about the different expectations of people in different occupational positions – which is slightly different.

Together with colleagues in the IDEAR networK, we looked at what those from different occupational backgrounds might expect in later life – to be precise, how many years with good health can they expect to enjoy between the ages of 50 and 75?

The data came from four cohort studies in England, Finland, France and Sweden.

We were able to look at data from 9,213 people in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing from 2002 onwards. We also had information on 42,978 people who took part in the Finnish Public Sector study between 1997 and 2013. In France, we used the GAZEL Cohort Study, which gathered information from 18,263 people working for the national utility company from 1989 onwards. And in Sweden, we looked at a sample of 8,186 people who responded to the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health between 2003 and 2014.

Health measures

We used two health measures: whether participants rated their own health as good or poor, and whether they had ever been diagnosed with heart disease, stroke, chronic lung disease, cancer or diabetes.

In all the cohorts, people in lower occupational positions could expect fewer years of life than those in higher occupational positions – and they could expect to spend fewer of those remaining years in good health.

So in England, both men and women in high-grade occupations could expect more than four years’ extra healthy life when compared with men and women in lower-grade occupations. In Finland that gap was wider, with those in high-grade jobs expecting at least six and a half years more good health. In France the difference was around two and a half years, while Sweden had the smallest gap of a little more than two years.

This pattern was consistent across the four countries and for both men and women. There were also socioeconomic inequalities in chronic disease-free life expectancy, although these differences were less marked than for self-rated health.

Better understanding

Why does this matter? A better understanding of the future health of older people is crucial to policy-makers because it affects public expenditure on income, health and long-term care. It also matters because governments want to extend working lives and increase State Pension ages, and in order to do that they need older workers to stay healthy.

Our results indicate that those in lower socioeconomic positions may be doubly disadvantaged because they have worse health but may also need to work longer for financial reasons. To achieve extended working lives for all, policy-makers will need to find ways of reducing those social class differences in health expectancies.

Socioeconomic differences in healthy and disease-free life expectancy between ages 50 and 75: a multi-cohort study, by  Jenny Head, Holendro Singh Chungkham , Martin Hyde, Paola Zaninotto, Kristina Alexanderson, Sari Stenholm, Paula Salo, Mika Kivimäki, Marcel Goldberg, Marie Zins, Jussi Vahtera and Hugo Westerlund, is published in the European Journal of Public Health.

 

Early retirement – can welfare systems help ease the transition?

The post-war baby boomgeneration in developed countries is reaching retirement age and this is placing strain on welfare systems. Sol Richardson and colleagues from the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies at UCL find the type of welfare system under which we live can affect our prospects of having a happy and fulfilled retirement.

We know stopping work can lead to changes in our sense of personal wellbeing both positive and negative. And we know this can be influenced by a range of factors, such as whether an individual has left work at the usual age or has stopped early.

There are other factors which can make a difference to how we fare after retirement, too: If we were dismissed, retired through illness or through unemployment, for instance, the change is more likely to hit us hard.  

But how much difference do the different types of welfare system which exist in different countries make to those who leave work early? Until now we havent had much clear evidence on this point.

Data

We looked at a sample of people from 16 countries, using data from the Study of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) between 2004 and 2013, and from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) between 2002 and 2013 these are studies which revisit their participants over time.

Our subjects were aged 50 years and over and had been visited before and after they left work.

We looked at a total sample of 8037 respondents who had left work between 2002 and 2013 and for whom we had information not only on work history but also on personal wellbeing.

We categorised how people left work according to the type of benefit they received afterwards: Were they receiving disability benefit, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, social assistance, early retirement pension, old age pension or none of those?

Retirement age is different in different countries it can depend on gender or on the number of years worked, and its been rising in many countries. So we defined retirement as the earliest age at which an individual can draw a full pension if he or she has been working since the age of 20.

And we looked at the wellbeing of our subjects, using a validated scale called CASP-12 (control, autonomy, self-realization and pleasure.)

And then we compared these findings according to the type of welfare regime the participants had in their home countries again using an internationally-recognised scheme that relates to how social benefits are granted and organized.

Negative effects

We found that those who left the labour market because of unemployment or disability and who left outside of the typical time-frame tended to experience negative effects on their personal wellbeing.

How much difference did country of residence make? We found this was significant, but that only a small proportion of the difference was down to the country itself. Almost two thirds of the wellbeing gaps we found between individuals in different countries could be accounted for, we found, by the type of welfare system they had.

Those living in Scandinavian social democratic welfare systems experienced the most positive transitions but this effect is unlikely to be down to expenditure alone. Other factors could be important for instance, employment rules guiding the ways people left work. Different finance mechanisms, the extent of benefit coverage and the eligibility regime for those benefits could also have an effect.  

When we looked at the different types of welfare system we found people in systems which could be described as Bismarckian,such as France or Germany, or  Scandinavian,such as Sweden or Denmark, did better than those in systems which could be categorised as Mediterranean,such as Italy or Greece.

As a generalisation, Scandinavian systems can be described as Social Democratic. They spend the most, they have high levels of cash benefits and a strong emphasis on services.

Bismarckian countries emphasise earnings-related cash benefits like pensions and they provide reasonable services, but not at the level of Social Democratic countries.

In Mediterranean countries, the pensions system is fragmented and services are rudimentary. People living in Mediterranean systems are more likely to rely on family and the voluntary sector for support.

Policy implications

What lessons should policy-makers draw from our study? We found that higher expenditure per head, particularly expenditure on non-healthcare services such as home help, did help our participants to feel better after they left paid work.

And our results have important implications for welfare policy: They underscore the importance of welfare services as greater numbers of workers approach retirement age and leave the labour market.

Country-level welfare-state measures and change in wellbeing following work exit in early old age: evidence from 16 European countries, by Sol Richardson, Ewan Carr, Gopalakrishnan Netuveli and Amanda Sacker, is published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, 2018, 113.

Working with a long-term illness – does employment status make a difference?

Across the developed world, a growing share of the population suffers from chronic disease such as diabetes, arthritis or heart problems – in the EU, around 45 per cent of those aged 55-64 had such a disease in 2015. And that affects their ability to work: just half of those with chronic illnesses are employed, compared to three quarters of those without. But how do the self-employed cope with such conditions, when compared with those in employment? Maria Fleischmann and colleagues from the RenEWL project find these differences in work status can make a major difference.

We know that when people become chronically ill, changes in their working conditions can help them to continue working. And we also know that good working conditions – being able to control how you use your time and how you do your job, whether you make the decisions and whether you feel valued, for instance – can help all of us to stay in paid work for longer.

And of course, if you become ill you’re more likely to feel the need to take time off or maybe to give up work altogether. We wanted to compare how the employed and the self-employed adjust their working conditions when facing a diagnosis of chronic disease.

Existing research tells us that many older people work for employers, and have to ask for their approval when it comes to making adjustments to their working conditions. The self-employed, meanwhile, are much more able to make their own decisions and tend to feel they have more control over their working lives.

We looked at people’s ability to control their work: physical demands, working hours, psychological demands such as how fast they had to work, and social aspects such as whether they felt valued.

And we had a great source of data for this – the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), which has followed a total of almost 9,000 over-50s since 2002.

From that group we were able to find and study 1389 participants who reported no chronic diseases when they were interviewed in 2004-5 – the second wave of interviews – and who were in work.  We were then able to look at what happened to them before the seventh wave of interviews, in 2013-14.

A little over 40 per cent of our sample were in managerial or professional occupations, a quarter in intermediate occupations, and almost 30 per cent in routine and manual occupations.

After diagnosis

At each interview, respondents were asked whether they had been diagnosed by a doctor with lung disease, asthma, arthritis, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes or high blood sugar, stroke or heart problems.

During the study period 510 of the 1389 sample members were newly diagnosed with one of those conditions. We were able to look at how they fared at work for four years after that, and we found some striking differences between how the employed and the self-employed seemed to have been treated.

The physical demands of our participants’ jobs were pretty similar before their diagnosis, for instance. But afterwards significant numbers of those who were employed said that those demands had actually increased when they were diagnosed. The self-employed, meanwhile, told us the opposite had happened to them – they reported significantly lower physical demands at work immediately after diagnosis. This effect continued for some time, though it grew less pronounced.

How could that be? We think maybe the increase in physical demands among the employed could be due to perception – similar demands might be perceived as more strenuous by the chronically ill. The self-employed, meanwhile, have more freedom to adjust those demands when they feel they need to.

The self-employed reported that their working hours dropped by an average of 2.8 hours per week on diagnosis, while those who were employed did not see a change. This effect was not statistically significant, though.

Employees found that their level of autonomy at work also dropped marginally, while for the self-employed there was no significant change. We did not find any major changes in psychological or social conditions in either group.

So, what did we learn? Essentially, that improvements in working conditions after diagnosis of chronic illness were restricted to the self-employed. So employers may need to ask themselves some hard questions – do they want to hold on to workers who become unwell? If they do, then they should consider the levels of flexibility they offer, and they should think about making adjustments for those workers if they don’t want to lose them.

In an ageing society, older people are expected to work ever longer and therefore to remain at work even when they begin to suffer from health problems. Our findings should also encourage policy-makers and governments to think about how chronically ill older adults are treated at work.

Changes in autonomy, job demands and working hours after diagnosis of chronic disease: a comparison of employed and self-employed older persons using the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA)by Maria Fleischmann, Ewan Carr, Baowen Xue, Paola Zaninotto, Stephen A Stansfeld, Mai Stafford and Jenny Head, is published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

 

Work stress and ill health – what’s the link?

Lots of studies have suggested stress can be a cause of ill health – and that leads to people ceasing to work before they reach retirement age. But most have offered only a snapshot on the issue. Now a new analysis of data from a major panel study by José Ignacio CuitúnCoronado and Tarani Chandola from the University of Manchester has shed new light on how work stress can affect an employee’s health over a longer period.

Many animals have the ability to adapt to environmental changes and pressures so that they’re better prepared the next time they happen. Bears can put on fat as winter approaches, for instance, to help them stave off hunger and stay warm.

And human beings can do this too. Stressful situations trigger chemical responses which can help to give us extra resources when things are tough. Our neuroendocrine systems, for instance, trigger hormonal responses which enhance our physical performance when we need it most.

But these valuable systems can have a downside. In our research, we wanted to look at how repeated exposure to stressful situations might contribute to health problems, particularly in people nearing the end of their working lives. We call this stress-induced effect ‘Allostatic Load’ – the wear and tear” on the body that accumulates as an individual is exposed to repeated or chronic stress because of fluctuating hormonal responses.

Given that many governments are looking for ways to extend working lives, there’s particular interest in finding out how stress can affect the health of older workers.We were able to tap into a rich source of information – the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), which has followed a representative sample of almost 10,000 over50s since 2002.

These participants have been interviewed regularly and one of the things they’ve been asked to report is whether they’ve experienced a sense of imbalance between the effort they put into their jobs and the rewards they get out.

Health testing

This gave us a sample of 2663 older adults, all over 50 and living in England, who’d reported these feelings at least once and who’d been assessed as having had an adverse reaction to them. We wanted to know whether repeated episodes had a bigger effect than just one, and whether the effect would be just as strong for past episodes as it was for more recent ones.

Between 2004-5 and 2014-16 the group were asked about stress at work, but they also underwent physical tests to see how the various systems in their bodies were bearing up.

They were visited by nurses who carried out a battery of tests including taking hair samples to assess levels of the stress-related hormone cortisol, carrying out blood pressure checks to provide information on their cardio-vascular systems, white blood cell counts to assess their immune systems and cholesterol checks on their metabolic systems. Participants also had measurements taken of their waist to height ratios – a good indicator of coronary heart disease risk factors.

Overall, we found the more occasions of work-stress a participant had reported, the greater their ‘Allostatic Load’ index – that is, the greater the amount of biological wear and tear. Moreover, the evidence suggests that employees who had experienced stress more recently (towards the end of their working career)had higher levels of health risk when compared to those who had experienced it earlier in their careers.

This suggests there is an association between repeated reports of stress at work and biological stress mechanisms, which in turn could lead to stress-related disorders such as coronary heart disease, type-2 diabetes or depression. This also suggests that previous cross-sectional studies which reported small or inconsistent associations may have suffered because they were only measuring one effect at one time.

Work-related stress is one of the reasons for labour market exit – and our findings would suggest that earlier, snapshot studies may have underestimated the true effect of work-related stress on health over a lifetime.

As this is an observational study, it is not possible tomake any causal claims. Also, there may be other factors that we have not taken into account that may explain the association between stress and disease risk. For example, sleep problems may be relevant – though they may also be part of the journey from stress to ill-health.

But equally it is possible that cumulative exposure to work stress is resulting in damage to employees’ physical health, which is then leading to disability and an early exit from the world of work. So, if we want to extend working lives then reducing work-related stress could be one of the keys to achieving that goal.

Allostatic Load and Effort-Reward Imbalance: Associations over the Working-Career, by José Ignacio Cuitún Coronado, Tarani Chandola and Andrew Steptoe, is published in the International Journal of
Environmental Reasearch and Public Health
.

Working after retirement age: who benefits?

Recent reforms have made it unlawful for employers to force their workers to retire. So what are the reasons why some people stay on after state pension age while others choose to leave? How do those decisions affect quality of life for those who stay, and for those who go? A study by Giorgio Di Gessa and colleagues at King’s College London and the University of Manchester sheds new light on the issue.

We know that more of us are working after we reach retirement age – but until now we haven’t known much about how people make that decision, or about what effect it has on their sense of wellbeing afterwards.

In our research, we used English data from a panel study of older people to find out more about who chooses to stay on in work and why. We then went on to ask whether those who chose to work felt differently about their lives when compared with those who felt they had to work.

We took a representative sample of 2,500 men aged 65 to 74 and women aged 60 to 69 who had previously been in work, and we found one fifth of them still had paid jobs. Of those, two thirds had chosen to continue to work because they enjoyed their jobs or because they wanted to keep fit and active. The other third said they worked for financial reasons: either they couldn’t afford to retire or they wanted to improve their pension provision for later.

We placed the retired respondents into three groups: Those who had had a ‘normal’ retirement when they became eligible for a state pension (28 per cent), those who felt they had to retire because of ill-health or redundancy (2 per cent); and those who retired voluntarily – because they could afford to do so or because they wanted to spend more time with their family, for instance (28 per cent).

Quality of life

On average, those who had retired experienced a lower quality of life, when measured on the CASP-19 scale for older people. The highest quality of life was reported by those who had stayed in work voluntarily, while the lowest was reported by those who had retired involuntarily. The gap in quality of life between these two groups is similar to the one observed between respondents who said they had a long-standing illness and those who did not. As expected, respondents who were financially better off also had higher quality of life scores.

When we considered changes in these CASP-19 scores over time, we found that on average people experienced a drop in their quality of life over a six-year period between two ‘waves’ of the study: about a quarter experienced a decrease of 5 points or more whereas just over 16% experienced an improvement of 5 or more points. Those working voluntarily experienced a slight increase in their quality of life when they eventually retired. On the other hand, the wellbeing of those who were working out of necessity did not improve after retirement.

Health benefits

As one might expect, the scores improved among those whose health got better after retirement, and worsened among those whose health deteriorated.

It’s worth noting that our study sample is skewed towards the more advantaged – the proportion with no qualifications is significantly lower than in the census. It is therefore likely that our study underestimates the percentage of people who work out of financial necessity.

What does our study tell us about working after retirement age? In particular, it reminds us how important it is for people to feel they have control over these key decisions about their lives. Those who continue working because they have to have lower quality of life than those who continue working because they want to – and even once those people have retired, this wellbeing gap is likely to persist.

We know that people who experience a higher quality of life tend to be healthier and to live longer.

Government initiatives aimed at helping workers maintain control over their decisions are worthwhile – but policymakers should also consider how people might be given more support throughout their lives to protect their financial and personal wellbeing if they do have to work for longer.

Further information

The decision to work after State Pension Age and how it affects Quality of Life: Evidence from a 6-year English panel study is a research paper by Giorgio Di Gessa of King’s College London, Laurie Corna of King’s College London, Debora Price of the University of Manchester and Karen Glaser of King’s College London. It is published in the journal Age & Ageing.

Having any job at all is better than being unemployed, right?

“Bad work just doesn’t fit in 2017!” Those are the words of Matthew Taylor, head of the Government’s recent review of modern work practices, who has called on politicians to make “all work good.” In an interview with the BBC, Mr Taylor, said that, as well as being bad for productivity and the economy, poor quality jobs were bad for people’s health and well-being. Recent research from Tarani Chandola from the University of Manchester has added further weight to those claims, finding that unemployed people who move into poor quality work have worse health than their peers who remain out of work. He explains more about the research findings and how they challenge the idea that having any job is good for your health.

There is considerable evidence to show that being out of work isn’t good for our health and that being in work can bring us a range of benefits, not just financial. It follows, then, that a move out of unemployment and into work is likely to be good for us, but does that hold true if the job we go into is a bad one?

Using rich social, economic and health data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), our research examined the stress levels of a group of unemployed people aged 30-75, some of whom moved into poor quality jobs, some into good jobs and some who remained unemployed.

We also looked to see if any other factors, including their health at the outset of our study, had any bearing on the likelihood of them moving into a poor or good quality job.

Twelve biomarkers

As well as physical measurements such as height, weight and blood pressure, and self-reported information on their physical and mental health, some participants in the study gave blood samples. These could be tested for a range of markers, high levels of which might indicate diabetes, heart or kidney disease, acute or chronic stress. In total, we had 12 separate biomarkers, providing us with a comprehensive picture of participants’ health and an overall measurement of their stress, something referred to as their allostatic load.

How much people earned, how secure their job was and their working environment were all considered, in order to get a sense of the quality of their employment. Participants were asked how satisfied they were at work, how anxious or worried they felt about their job, how much control they had at work and whether they thought they might lose their job in the coming 12 months.

The people studied were divided into four groups:

  • Remained unemployed
  • Employed in a good quality job
  • Employed in a job with one poor quality measure
  • Employed with at least two poor quality measures

Stress levels

When we looked at the stress levels of the different groups, a clear pattern emerged. Unsurprisingly, people who moved out of unemployment and into a good job had the lowest levels of stress. People who went from being unemployed to working in a bad job (with more than two poor quality job measures) had the highest stress levels. These were 1.5 times higher than for those people who remained unemployed.

We took into consideration a host of other factors that might have had some role in propelling an unemployed person into a good or bad job, but even when we looked at their health at the outset of the study, this did not really play a role, other than to note that the people in better health moved into both good and bad jobs. In other words it wasn’t simply that people already in poor health were moving into the worse jobs.

Although numbers for this research were relatively small, the methods and analysis were extremely robust and we can, with some confidence, challenge the widespread belief that any employment, even poor quality work, is better for our health and wellbeing than being unemployed.

The findings serve to illuminate research published by the RSA and Populus recently, showing that three out of four people think we should do more as a country to improve the quality of work. Even more telling was the contrast between the over two thirds who think we can make all work fair and decent, and the less than one in ten who think this is already the case.

Making good work matter

Mr Taylor makes the case that “good work matters” and the RSA’s social media campaign #GoodWorkIs is a laudable effort to engage the wider public in a discussion about what good work looks like.

However, he, like many others, has said that the “worst work status for health is unemployment”. Our research shows that’s not necessarily the case, and our findings, together with more research in this area, should be considered carefully as strategies are hopefully developed to make his call to “make all work good” a reality not a pipedream, especially in the current political climate.

Re-employment, job quality, health and allostatic load biomarkers: Prospective evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study is research by Tarani Chandola and Nan Zhang and is published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

 

Frailty: what is the connection with our working lives?

People are living longer, and the number of over-65s is expected to reach around one in four of the UK population by 2050. But is retirement a golden age, or will we be dogged by poor health? Wentian Lu from University College London and colleagues investigated how our working pattern throughout our lives affects our health after we retire, and found interesting differences between men and women.

Government policies are focused on extending our working lives, and record numbers of people are now working beyond state pension age. But what effect is it having on our health?

The UK government’s former older workers champion, and pensions expert, Dr Ros Altmann argues that raising the state pension age is a blunt instrument for managing old-age support, which could compound existing social and health inequalities.

With people being expected to work for longer, it is critical to understand whether and how people’s working lives affect their later life health.

A recent study led by colleague Dr Giorgio Di Gessa found no significant health benefits from working beyond state pension age, once social background, previous health and employment histories were taken into account.

Our investigation was the first in England to focus on the impact of earlier working patterns on health in later life.

We used information on more than 1,600 men and nearly 2,800 women from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Health-related information on a range of things such as chronic conditions, pain, depression, heart disease, falls, fractures and joint replacement was used to develop a frailty index.

Using detailed work histories between the ages of 16 and 64 for men (16 and 59 for women), they were divided into groups which ranged from ‘full-time employment throughout’ to ‘unemployed throughout’. For men, we considered those who left work early, at either 60 or 49 years, and those who started work late (e.g because they went to University or spent time gaining other qualifications) and retired at 60.

For women’s employment histories, we also took account of part-time working, long and short career breaks, family care, and those who only had occasional work and retired early.

Frailty over time

The study confirmed that frailty increased with age, accelerating after 65 for women and 70 for men.

The findings showed that women who took a short break for family care and then worked part-time until they were 59 had better health at retirement age than those who were mostly in full-time work. Experiencing long career breaks or only working occasionally also appeared to be more detrimental for women’s health. This finding supports the importance of work-life balance for women’s health in later life.

Women who returned to work part-time after a short career break were healthier than those who went from family care to full-time work. If further studies confirm this result, it would indicate that working part-time while their children are young can have long-term positive benefits for women’s health. The key to maintaining the long-term health of today’s generation of working mothers will be to promote flexible working policies, such as flexible start and finish times, allowing women to balance work and childcare.

Consistent with previous studies, our investigation found that women who have never worked tend to have poorer health than those who worked full-time until the age of 60. What was more surprising was that women who never worked experienced a slower decline in their health beyond the age of 60, even when social background and health-affecting behaviours such as smoking and drinking were taken into account.

Early retirement

Men who retired early at either 49 or 60 had poorer health than those who worked until they were 65. However, leaving paid employment before the age of 65 slowed down the progress of poor health in later life.

This supports the findings of previous studies which show that the burden of ill-health is substantially relieved by early retirement. With Government policies encouraging older people to work longer, our research lends further weight to concerns that this may not be good for those already suffering poor health.

Another unexpected finding was that men who started working later in life and retired at around 60, who tended to be those more highly educated and with greater social advantage, actually experienced more rapid declines in health after the age of 65 than those who worked full-time from an earlier age and retired early. This was a small group, so further research is needed to explore this in more depth.

Despite limitations imposed by some of our employment history groups being quite small, as well as possible biases coming from participants’ subjective reporting of health issues, our findings offer important pointers for developing effective strategies to improve health for older people in the UK.

If, as Dr Altmann suggests, the government could replace the blunt instrument of raising state pension age with more finely-tuned policies, allowing those who can and want to extend their working lives to do so in a flexible way, this would be fairer and give the most vulnerable a better chance of enjoying a healthy retirement.

Further information

Relationship between employment histories and frailty trajectories in later life: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is research by Wentian Lu, Rebecca Benson and Amanda Sacker of University College London, Karen Glaser and Laurie Corna of King’s College London, Loretta Platts of Stockholm University, Diana Worts and Peggy McDonough of the University of Toronto, Giorgio Di Gessa from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Debora Price of the University of Manchester. It is published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

 

Healthy pensioners: Is working in our 60s good for us?

Pension ages in the UK are rising from the traditional 65 for men and 60 for women, as people live longer. But is working in later life good for us? The Government’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies says people aged 50-70 are more likely to stay healthy if they stay in work, but what does the evidence show? Dr Giorgio Di Gessa from the London School of Economics and Political Science and colleagues have investigated how being in paid work beyond state pension age affects our physical and mental health and how well we sleep and find a different story.

By 2020, it is estimated that one third of workers will be over 50. By then the state pension age will also have risen to 66 for everyone in the UK, climbing to 67 by 2028.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal more than 1.2 million over-65s remain in work, an increase of nearly 50 per cent since the Default Retirement Age was banned in 2011, meaning employers cannot make staff retire when they reach state pension age.

With so many older people working, and with UK policies, and those of other western nations, designed to extend working lives, it is important to understand how continuing to work might affect our health.

Many studies have shown that working is good for physical and mental health in adults of normal working age. There is also evidence that retirement can be good for health. But little research has focused on the impact on health of working beyond State Pension age.

A previous study using the British Household Panel Survey suggests those working beyond state pension age self-report better health, but their lifetime health history was not studied. Given that healthier people are more likely to stay working, this needs to be taken into account for a more accurate picture.

Previous work history is also important, as there is evidence of poorer health among those with significant periods out of work. This is also likely to affect decisions about whether to continue working in later life.

Working longer

Using information on more than 1,600 people from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, we looked at the health and employment histories of men aged 65 to 74, and women aged 60 to 69. After those ages few men or women worked. Around a quarter of the women and 15 per cent of the men worked past State Pension age.

Participants in the study were asked if they had difficulties falling or staying asleep and whether they felt tired on waking up. Their grip strength was measured, and they also rated their own health, reporting any medical problems such as a long standing illness, heart disease, stroke, or loss of mobility.

For those who were employed, we looked at whether they worked more or less than 20 hours each week, and whether they had sedentary or active jobs. We also looked for differences between those in managerial and professional occupations through to those with routine and manual jobs.

Periods of unemployment for men and part-time working and career breaks for women were taken into account, together with the individual’s education, wealth, housing situation, marital status, caring responsibilities and factors like smoking and exercising.

Good health

Men and women in good health were more likely to be working past state pension age, as were those with a better education and those who had been in better health throughout their lives . Among women, those who were divorced or separated, still had mortgages and were not carers were more likely to continue working.

One third of those working beyond state pension age were in managerial positions, 45 per cent worked part-time, and one third of men and 41 per cent of women had a desk job. Men and women who worked throughout their lives were more likely to continue working after state pension age.

Men and women in paid work were less likely to be depressed or to have disturbed sleep, and reported better physical health, than those who didn’t work.

However, when social background, and previous health and employment histories were taken into account, we did not find any significant health benefits of working past state pension age. This is most likely to be because only a select group of healthy older adults work beyond this age.

Population health

What is clear is that the decision and ability to continue working past state pension age is strongly affected by current and lifetime health.

Overall, our study shows that extending our working lives has no effect on our health. However, it remains an open question whether changing the state pension age could worsen population health if everyone, including those in poor health, is required to work longer.

To support policies aimed at extending working lives, it will be essential for governments to focus on health promotion and policies which help to improve the health of the population throughout their working life.

Going forward it would be useful to know more about the reasons people continue working. Is it through choice or because they need the money? It would also be good to look at the timing of previous poor health to see at what stage ill health stops people from working.

Further information

Is being in paid work beyond state pension age beneficial for health? Evidence from England using a life-course approach is research by Giorgio Di Gessa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Laurie Corna of King’s College London, Loretta Platts of Stockholm University, Diana Worts and Peggy McDonough of the University of Toronto, Amanda Sacker of University College London, Debora Price of the University of Manchester, and Karen Glaser of King’s College London. It is published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

Photo credit: Farmer stepping into cab, United Soybean

Empower employees! They will retire later

Working longer has become a policy priority in recent years, but how can people be actively encouraged to retire later? What needs to change in the workplace in order to persuade people to extend their working life? UCL’s Ewan Carr, as part of the renEWL project, has been looking at survey information from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) to see what matters to older workers when it comes to deciding whether or not to retire.

Rates of employment among older workers (aged 50-64) may have increased in the last decade or so, but across Europe, significant numbers of people in this age group continue to retire before the statutory pension age. In fact, more people retire before statutory pension age than after it.

For policymakers seeking to change that position, and for businesses looking for how best to modify the workplace to help achieve it, a better understanding of the drivers behind early retirement is essential.

Job demands and conditions

We looked at the working lives of nearly 3500 members of the ELSA study to see whether the demands and conditions of their job influenced the preferred and actual timing of their retirement. We focused on the mental as well as the physical demands of their job.

We anticipated that those with physically and mentally demanding jobs would prefer and, where possible, opt for early retirement, whilst those with fulfilling jobs, with decision making powers, support and recognition, good career opportunities and financial reward would be happy to work longer.

Participants in the study were asked how physically demanding their job was, how much time pressure they were under at work, how much control they had and to what extent they felt supported and recognised.

After taking a range of factors into account, the mental demands of a job, control at work and low recognition were the most influential when it came to retirement timing preferences.

Retirement preferences

We found that employees who reported having to ‘work very fast’ or being under time pressure preferred to retire 3 months earlier than those who said this was not the case. Employees who reported having low levels of control at work and low recognition wanted to retire around 5 months sooner than their peers.

The likelihood of actually stopping work (as opposed to wanting to stop work) was also influenced by levels of decision control, support and recognition. Employees with high levels of control were less likely to stop working, compared to those with low levels of control. Employees who felt poorly supported or that their work wasn’t recognised were also more likely to give up work.

It seems that even though a mentally demanding job might lead someone to say they would like to retire early, this doesn’t always lead to them leaving work. Other factors, besides the workplace environment, may prevent older workers from retiring when they want to.

Those who want to keep working might end up retiring early due to poor health or caring responsibilities. On the other hand, employees who want to retire early (due to the demands of work) might lack the necessary pension or financial savings to make this possible.

Our findings indicate that increasing job control from low to high could postpone retirement preferences by as much as two years – a clear indication that modifying the workplace could and should be a focus for policymakers and businesses aiming to extend working life.

Working conditions as predictors of retirement intentions and exit from paid employment: a 10-year follow-up of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is research by Ewan Carr, Gareth Hagger-Johnson, Jenny Head, Nicola Shelton, Mai Stafford, Stephen Stansfield and Paola Zaninotto. It is published in the European Journal of Ageing

Photo credit:  Hiroyuki Takeda

Working longer: is it good for your health?

Across Europe we are all living and working longer. Many of us in the UK are working past state pension retirement age. But what sorts of jobs do older workers opt for and why and what does all this mean for our health, especially in the context of changes to the age at which we can collect our state pension?  In this policy presentation from the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies at UCL, Professor David Blane looks at what these changes mean for our quality of life as we get older and the implications for those working in occupational health.

A full transcription of David Blane’s talk is also available on the ICLS website.

Photo credit: Scott Lewis