1 Introduction and background
1.5 This report
1.5.1 Reporting conventions
This report should be read alongside the Fit for Work Process Evaluation: Technical Annex publication. Tables containing headline findings are presented throughout this report, but where there are statistically significant differences between results for different groups (e.g. by employee age), then these more detailed tables can be found in the Technical Annex. The structure of the data tables in the Technical Annex follows that of this report, and data tables detailing all the findings can be found in the corresponding section of the Technical Annex.
The data presented in the tables is weighted, and unweighted bases are given underneath each table. There are instances, therefore, where the ‘Total’ value in the tables differs to the N value given in the base, because weighting has been applied to the survey data to ensure its representativeness.
The totals presented in the tables relating to the same question are consistent between those tables. Where there are missing data for cross-breaks then the total given for all respondents may mean that the data within the table do not sum.
For example, if some respondents did not declare their ethnicity, but answered the question, their responses would be reported in the total, but not for responses by ethnicity.
Where the data presented in the base of the table (i.e. the number of responses included) has less than 100 cases this is indicated with an asterisk (*) and results should be treated with caution. Results are not reported where the table base is less than 25 cases, and percentages based on 25-49 unweighted cases (column or row bases as applicable) are presented in square brackets. Throughout this report all relationships reported have been tested at the five per cent significance level. Only differences that are statistically significant are reported in the text, except where it is notable that the survey has not identified a statistically significant relationship between two variables. In these instances relationships that are not statistically significant are noted in the text and data tables are not presented.
The percentages contained in the tables presented in this report are rounded.
This can affect where combined summary figures are given in the text and they may not sum due to rounding (e.g. ‘Agree’ as a summary of combined ‘Strongly Agree’ and ‘Agree’ responses).
Responses giving ‘don’t know’ have been excluded from tables where it is in response to a question seeking an attitudinal answer. Where they indicate a respondent’s lack of awareness or certainty about a categorical issue, ‘don’t know’ responses have been included.
In some instances where very low numbers of individual responses to a specific category represent a theoretical risk of disclosure, steps have been taken to guard against this by combining two or more categories together and applying a disclosure control process based on Office for National Statistics (ONS) guidance for tables produced from administrative sources and surveys.23 Where a cell size is one or two, and in instances where the distribution of zeros in a table present a risk of disclosure, e.g. where all categories in a column/row except one contain zeros then the reader
23 https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Guidance-for-tables-produced-from-surveys.pdf https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Guidance-for-tables-produced-from-administrative-sources.pdf
would know that all members of a particular group belong to that category, then measures have been taken to hide that information. In data tables where there is a risk of disclosure, rounding has been applied to the nearest 10 (i.e. 0 or 10) for all count cells in the table. Percentages are preserved at their actual values. The affected tables are marked to highlight that rounding has been applied.
Data tables presenting management information provide the total for the number of cases, with a description of the coverage of the data in the source. Where there are substantial numbers of cases with missing data, these are noted and it should be taken into account when interpreting the figures.
Logistic regression, also known as a logit model, has been used to investigate which factors were associated with certain outcomes in the Fit for Work journey. This statistical technique is used where there is a binary outcome, such as receiving an assessment or not receiving an assessment, and where there are two or more factors of interest, such as health condition, age or gender. Since the outcome is likely to be influenced by several factors at the same time (such as health conditions, age or gender), we build a series of models using combinations of the variables of interest to identify which factors or combinations of factors best account for the observed outcomes, such as whether service users with certain characteristics were more or less likely to receive an assessment.
Results from logistic regressions have been presented using odds ratios to describe the likelihood of an outcome occurring. For example, when comparing two groups of Fit for Work service users, one group may be 2.5 times more likely to have received an RtWP than another group. Where odds ratios have a value that is lower than one, these have been described in terms of an outcome being less likely to occur. For example, if group A is 0.5 times as likely to have experienced an outcome as group B, then it would be stated that group A was 2 times less likely to experience an outcome than group B.
The following definitions have been used when referring to the size of employers:
• Very large employer – 500 or more employees;
• Large employer – 250 or more employees;
• Medium-sized employer – 50-249 employees; and
• Small employer – less than 50 employees.
1.5.2 Report structure
This report is structured following the Fit for Work process before focusing on the outcomes of the service and its added value. The report is accompanied by a Technical Annex which contains data tables for all the data presented in this report, and the research tools. Key tables, however, are contained within the main report:
• Chapter 2 presents findings from the employer and employee surveys about their attitudes to work and sickness absence
• Chapter 3 presents the evidence about awareness and understanding of the service among employers and GPs, and explores referrals to the service, including the process of gaining consent to refer
• Chapter 4 details the findings about the occupational health assessment, including the assessment coverage and findings, and employer contact with case managers
• Chapter 6 examines the reasons employees are discharged from the service, and what affects drop-out, both prior to receiving an assessment and afterwards
• Chapter 7 reports on the outcomes of the Fit for Work service, such as employees returning to work, retention in employment and changes to health and well-being
• Chapter 8 looks at employer and employee perceptions of the added value of the service, and their suggestions for its improvement
• Chapter 9 presents data gathered about the Fit for Work advisory services
• Chapter 10 synthesises the evidence against the evaluation aims and presents some conclusions
• The detailed methodology is contained in Chapter 11.