Explanations for economic difficulties among old-age pensioners previously on disability pension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study looks at how previous disability retirement is associated with economic difficulties in covering the costs of everyday basic necessities in old age, and the extent to which the differences in economic difficulties between old-age pensioners with previous disability pension and other old-age pensioners are mediated by health, income and life satisfaction. METHODS: The survey data includes 2227 retirees aged 63-85 who were receiving old-age pension in 2017. A quarter of them had received a disability pension before their old-age pension. Economic difficulties were measured through a subjective assessment of how difficult it was to cover the following necessities: food, housing, medication, health services, transport, phone and internet use. The odds ratios and their 95%-confidence intervals were analyzed with ordered logistic regression models. RESULTS: Old-age pensioners with previous disability retirement experienced more economic difficulties in covering cost of necessities than other old-age pensioners. The differences were especially large among those with a mental diagnosis. Health, pension income and life satisfaction attenuated the differences slightly. The fully adjusted odds ratio for having economic difficulties in covering the cost of medicine and health care among old-age pensioners with previous disability retirement due to mental disorders was 2.15 (95% CI 1.44-3.22) compared to other old-age pensioners without previous disability retirement. CONCLUSIONS: Preventing disability retirement among working-age people diminishes the risk of economic difficulties in old age. More attention should be focussed especially on those with a high risk of disability retirement due to mental disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".