Discrediting experiences: outcomes of eligibility assessments for claimants with psychiatric compared with non-psychiatric conditions transferring to personal independence payments in England - ERRATUM.

Clicks: 323
ID: 84968
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #11 of 16 articles by views in BJPsych open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Recent qualitative research suggests that changes to the way eligibility for welfare payments is determined in the UK may be detrimental to claimants with mental illnesses. No large-scale analysis has been undertaken to date.AimsTo examine differences between claimants with psychiatric conditions compared with non-psychiatric conditions in the number of claims disallowed following a personal independence payment (PIP) eligibility assessment for existing disability living allowance (DLA) claimants.Administrative data on DLA claimants with psychiatric conditions transferring to PIP between 2013 and 2016 was compared with claimants with non-psychiatric conditions to explore differences in the number of claims disallowed following an eligibility assessment.Claimants with a mental illness were 2.40 (95% CI 2.36-2.44) times more likely to have their existing DLA entitlement removed following a PIP eligibility assessment than claimants with musculoskeletal conditions, neurological conditions and diabetes.PIP eligibility assessment outcomes show marked differences by health condition, raising questions as to whether the process is equitable.Declaration of interestNone.
Reference Key
pybus2019discreditingbjpsych Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Pybus, Katie;Pickett, Kate E;Prady, Stephanie L;Lloyd, Charlie;Wilkinson, Richard;
Journal BJPsych open
Year 2019
DOI
10.1192/bjo.2019.16
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.