The Abilitator is used for surveying the customer’s situation in employment and social services, rehabilitation, health care and education. The customers are often in need of multidisciplinary services, and the Abilitator can be used for planning the service package and setting goals in such situations. At the end of 2019, a total of 271 organizations had credentials to the Abilitator web service. Of these, 40% were projects funded by Strand 5 of the European Social Fund, with which the Abilitator was jointly developed.

Of the Abilitator respondents, 89% are unemployed, and the unemployment of one in two of them had continued for more than 3 years. The Abilitator is thus used in services targeting those in a difficult employment position. For example, the respondents to the Abilitator consider their work ability to be considerably lower than Finns on average (Figure 1). Moreover, the Abilitator respondents are not necessarily visible in population-level surveys. The Abilitator is in fact an example of data inherently accumulated in conjunction with service. Often, such data is registry data, such as care notifications or prescriptions accumulated in health care. Data systematically accumulated directly from the customers themselves is rarer.

Oma arvio työkyvystä Kykyviisari aineistossa ja väestöotokseen pohjautuvassa Finterveys 2017- kyselyssä

Figure 1. Self-assessment of work ability in the Abilitator data and population sample-based Finterveys 2017 survey. Let’s assume that your work ability would receive a score of 10 points at its best. What point score would you give your current work ability?

The Abilitator assesses general work ability and functional capacity, as well as five areas of functional capacity, separately: mental well-being, social inclusion, physical functional capacity, competence and the smoothness of day-to-day life. Perceived work ability and perceived functional capacity are strongly interlinked (see Work ability and functional capacity experiences application at the bottom of the page). Because most of the Abilitator respondents are not currently employed, they might also assess their work ability based on their health and general functional capacity.

You can learn about and try responding to the Abilitator on the kykyviisari.fi site.

The Abilitator opened for all parties to use in March 2018, so its deployment in different services is still in its infancy. However, it was developed together with service providers and clients to be easy to use and a useful tool for the clients as well as the professionals working with them. The usefulness of the Abilitator in customer work is significant from the point of view of the data it generates. The data generated by the Abilitator can be utilised at the individual level in customer work and at the group and policymaker levels by e.g. describing the structure and special characteristics of the customer base of one or more parties (Figure 2). The more extensively the Abilitator is used, the better the data it generates can be utilized in assessing and developing e.g. areas, service systems or forms of operation.

Figure 2. Utilization of the Abilitator at different levels of operations
Level of Abilitator operational modelPurpose
Situation assessmentService needMonitoring of change
Individual levelinvestigating the individual’s situation, intervention tool, individual guidance toolsetting objectives, directing operations and their contentmonitoring changes in the individuals’ work ability and functional capacity, assessing the impacts of services, monitoring the impacts of one’s own work
Group levelinvestigating the situation of a client group, profiling client groups, tool for group guidancesetting objectives, directing functions/services and their content at group levelmonitoring changes in work ability and functional capacity and impacts of functions/services, monitoring the impacts of one’s own work
Decision-making levelinvestigating the situation of the organization’s customerssetting objectives, directing functions/services and their content at organizational levelmonitoring changes in work ability and functional capacity and impacts of functions/services

Work ability and functioning self-assessment

Sex distribution
Women: 3704 cases 50.9 % of casesMen: 3578 cases 49.1 % of casesWomen 51 %Men 49 %
Age categories
15-19: 359 cases 4.9 % of cases20-29: 2010 cases 27.6 % of cases30-39: 1484 cases 20.4 % of cases40-49: 1395 cases 19.2 % of cases50-59: 1717 cases 23.6 % of cases60-64: 317 cases 4.4 % of cases15-1920-2930-3940-4950-5960-64Age group0500100015002000Number of cases
Self-assessed work-ability
0: 197 cases 2.7 % of cases1: 200 cases 2.7 % of cases2: 366 cases 5.0 % of cases3: 523 cases 7.2 % of cases4: 539 cases 7.4 % of cases5: 894 cases 12.3 % of cases6: 808 cases 11.1 % of cases7: 1166 cases 16.0 % of cases8: 1286 cases 17.7 % of cases9: 770 cases 10.6 % of cases10: 533 cases 7.3 % of cases012345678910Work Ability01002003004005006007008009001,0001,1001,200Number of cases
Self-assessed functioning
0: 12 cases 0.2 % of cases1: 42 cases 0.6 % of cases2: 174 cases 2.4 % of cases3: 387 cases 5.3 % of cases4: 504 cases 6.9 % of cases5: 828 cases 11.4 % of cases6: 804 cases 11.0 % of cases7: 1253 cases 17.2 % of cases8: 1563 cases 21.5 % of cases9: 1013 cases 13.9 % of cases10: 702 cases 9.6 % of cases012345678910Functional Ability02004006008001,0001,2001,400Number of cases
Life satisfaction
050010001500200025003000Very satisfiedVery satisfied: 767 cases 10.5 % of casesFairly satisfiedFairly satisfied: 3215 cases 44.1 % of casesNeither satisfied nor unsatisfiedNeither satisfied nor unsatisfied: 2169 cases 29.8 % of casesFairly unsatisfiedFairly unsatisfied: 931 cases 12.8 % of casesVery unsatisfiedVery unsatisfied: 200 cases 2.7 % of casesNumber of casesLife satisfaction
Self-assessed health
0500100015002000GoodGood: 1133 cases 15.6 % of casesFairly goodFairly good: 2013 cases 27.6 % of casesAverageAverage: 2475 cases 34.0 % of casesFairly poorFairly poor: 1397 cases 19.2 % of casesPoorPoor: 264 cases 3.6 % of casesNumber of casesHealth
Self-assessed functioning versus Self-assessed work ability
3 cases1 cases1 cases2 cases1 cases1 cases3 cases10 cases8 cases3 cases3 cases5 cases2 cases4 cases2 cases4 cases1 cases8 cases6 cases268 cases10 cases8 cases13 cases42 cases28 cases55 cases111 cases153 cases32 cases34 cases4 cases32 cases26 cases10 cases8 cases9 cases4 cases12 cases3 cases37 cases37 cases5 cases77 cases109 cases37 cases34 cases19 cases16 cases11 cases5 cases19 cases33 cases6 cases66 cases106 cases101 cases81 cases33 cases29 cases21 cases9 cases24 cases24 cases13 cases57 cases108 cases135 cases224 cases104 cases79 cases42 cases18 cases17 cases21 cases19 cases38 cases59 cases87 cases149 cases215 cases130 cases52 cases17 cases13 cases16 cases33 cases34 cases46 cases81 cases187 cases196 cases396 cases196 cases55 cases22 cases10 cases72 cases29 cases38 cases58 cases119 cases154 cases332 cases546 cases183 cases12 cases10 cases110 cases19 cases16 cases14 cases46 cases47 cases121 cases291 cases327 cases012345678910012345678910Functional AbilityWork Ability