You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Occupational health and valid work exposure tools are keys to improving the health of ageing workers
  1. Alexis Descatha1,2,
  2. Yves Roquelaure3
  1. 1 Versailles St-Quentin University, INSERM U1168 UMS011, Villejuif, France
  2. 2 Occupational Health Unit, AP-HP (Paris Hospital “Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris”), University Hospital of West Suburb of Paris, Garches, France
  3. 3 ESTER UMR1085, INSERM University of Angers CHU Angers, Angers, France
  1. Correspondence to Professor Alexis Descatha, Occupational Health Unit, Université de Versailles St-Quentin-Inserm U1168 UMS011 APHP, Garches, PA 92380, France; Alexis.Descatha{at}inserm.fr

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017-104673

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Many countries have increased the legal retirement age due to economic constraints and ageing populations.1 One important obstacle to raising retirement age is premature ageing caused by difficult and arduous working conditions.2 3 Nevertheless, even for some countries with retirement ages that may vary according to working conditions, it is particularly challenging to define an optimal retirement age that consistently and fairly determines which workers may be granted earlier retirement due to difficult working conditions.

    France started by defining exposures in terms of their consequences, that is, the presence of a specific recognised occupational disease or injury.4 In 2014, the government introduced a new rule requiring employers to evaluate the extent of workers’ exposures to multiple working conditions. The workers could retire earlier depending on the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both authors participated to write the letter and approved it.

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.