Measurement Properties of the Work Ability Score in Sick-Listed Workers with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

Purpose Chronic musculoskeletal pain can have a major impact on ability to work. The work ability score is a commonly used single-item question to assess work ability but has not been fully validated yet. The aim of the present study was to evaluate test-retest reliability, agreement, construct validity, and responsiveness of the work ability score among sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods Data of sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain was routinely collected at seven rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. Assessments included a set of questionnaires, administered at admission and discharge from a fifteen-week vocational rehabilitation program. Test-retest reliability was determined with the intraclass correlation coefficient. For agreement, the standard error of measurement and smallest detectable changes were calculated. Construct validity was assessed by testing hypotheses regarding Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Area under the curve obtained from the receiver operating characteristic curve and minimal clinically important change were determined for the total sample and work ability score baseline tertile groups to assess responsiveness. Results In total, 34 workers were analyzed for reliability and agreement, 1291 workers for construct validity, and 590 responded to the responsiveness questionnaire. Reliability reached an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89; 95% CI 0.77-0.94, a standard error of measurement of 0.69 points, and the smallest detectable change of 1.92 points. For construct validity, six of the seven predefined hypotheses were not refuted. The area under the curve was 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.81) allowing for discrimination between stable and improved workers, with a minimal clinically important change of 2.0 points for the total sample. Conclusion The work ability score showed good measurement properties among sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Functional Capacity Evaluation Research: Report from the Fourth International Functional Capacity Evaluation Research Meeting.

Purpose To summarize progress of functional capacity evaluation (FCE) research based on the proceedings of the Fourth International FCE Research Conference held in Switzerland on September 21 and 22, 2018. Methods A scientific committee identified key issues in FCE research and developed the program including key note presentations, a call for abstracts, and round table discussions over 2 days. Highlights of the presentations and discussions are summarized in this article. Results Seventy-nine participants from 11 countries attended the conference where 10 keynote lectures and 21 abstracts were presented. There was also an open discussion regarding the need for an International FCE clinical practice guideline (CPG), methods for developing such a guideline, and practical next steps. Full program details and abstracts from this Fourth International FCE Research Conference are available from https://www.sar-reha.ch/interessengemeinschaften/ig-ergonomie.html . Conclusions Researchers and clinicians continue to increase the body of knowledge in the FCE field. A major finding of this conference is the diversity across the different FCE protocols and research groups as well as of the different uses of FCE across cultural and social economic systems. Next steps will include exploring the development of an international, interdisciplinary, evidence-based FCE clinical practice guideline by a committee formed at the conference.

Functional Capacity Evaluation Research: Report from the Third International Functional Capacity Evaluation Research Meeting.

Purpose Based on the success of the first two conferences the Third International FCE Research Conference was held in The Netherlands on September 29, 2016. The aim was to provide ongoing opportunity to share and recent FCE research and discuss its implications. Methods Invitations and call for abstracts were sent to previous attendees, researchers, practicing FCE clinicians and professionals. Fifteen abstracts were selected for presentation. The FCE research conference contained two keynote lectures. Results 54 participants from 12 countries attended the conference where 15 research projects and 2 keynote lectures were presented. The conference provided an opportunity to present and discuss recent FCE research, and provided a forum for discourse related to FCE use. Conference presentations covered aspects of practical issues in administration and interpretation; protocol reliability and validity; consideration of specific injury populations; and a focused discussion on proposed inclusion of work physiology principles in FCE testing with the Heart Rate Reserve Method. Details of this Third International FCE Research Conference are available from http://repro.rcnheliomare.nl/FCE.pdf . Conclusions Researchers, clinicians, and other professionals in the FCE area have a common desire to further improve the content and quality of FCE research and to collaborate to further develop research across systems, cultures and countries. A fourth, 2-day, International FCE research conference will be held in Valens, Switzerland in August or September 2018. A 'FCE research Society' will be developed.

Towards an ICF- and IMMPACT-based pain vocational rehabilitation core set in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: For clinical use and research of pain within the context of vocational rehabilitation, a specific core set of measurements is needed. The recommendations of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) brief Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and those of Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) cover two broad areas. These two sources can be integrated when made applicable to vocational rehabilitation and pain. Objective To develop a core set of diagnostic and evaluative measures specifically for vocational rehabilitation of patients with subacute and chronic musculoskeletal pain, while using the brief ICF core set for VR as the reference framework in VR, and the IMMPACT recommendations in the outcome measurements around pain. METHODS: Three main steps were taken. The first step was to remove irrelevant and duplicate domains of the brief ICF Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation and the IMMPACT recommendations around pain. The second step was to match the remaining domains with existing instruments or measures. Instruments were proposed based on availability and its proven use in Dutch practice and based on proof of sufficient clinimetric properties. In step 3, the preliminary VR-Pain core set was presented to 3 expert panels: proposed users, Dutch pain rehabilitation experts, and international VR experts. RESULTS: Experts agreed with the majority of the proposed domains and instruments. The final VR-Pain Core Set consists of 18 domains measured with 12 instruments. All instruments possessed basic clinimetric properties. CONCLUSION: An agreed-upon VR-Pain Core Set with content that covers relevant domains for pain and VR and validated instruments measuring these domains has been developed. The VR-Pain Core Set may be used for regular clinical purposes and research in the field of vocational rehabilitation and pain, but adaptations should be considered for use outside the Netherlands.

How many people return to work after acquired brain injury?: a systematic review.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate how many people return to work (RTW) after acquiring brain injury (ABI) due to traumatic or non-traumatic causes. Secondary objectives were to investigate the differences in outcome between traumatic and non-traumatic causes, the development of RTW over time and whether or not people return to their former job. METHODS: A systematic literature search (1992-2008) was performed using terms of ABI and RTW. The methodological quality of the studies was determined. An overall estimation of percentage RTW 1 and 2 years post-injury was calculated by data pooling. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Finally, 49 studies were included. Within 2 years post-injury, 39.3% of the subjects with non-traumatic ABI returned to work. Among people with traumatic ABI, 40.7% returned to work after 1 year and 40.8% after 2 years. No effect of cause or time since injury was found. Some people with traumatic ABI who returned to work were not able to sustain their job over time. Changes of occupation and job demands are common among people with ABI. CONCLUSIONS: About 40% of the people with traumatic or non-traumatic ABI are able to return to work after 1 or 2 years. Among those with acquired traumatic brain injury a substantial proportion of the subjects were either not able to return to their former work or unable to return permanently.

Prognostic factors of return to work after acquired brain injury: a systematic review.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the prognostic and non-prognostic factors of return to work (RTW) in people with traumatic and non-traumatic acquired brain injury (ABI) who were working before injury. METHODS: A systematic literature search (1992-2008) was performed, including terms for ABI, RTW and prognostic factors. The methodological quality of the studies was determined. Evidence was classified as strong (positive, negative or no), weak or inconsistent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Following classification of the studies, 22 studies were included. Strong evidence was found that 'gender' and 'anatomic location' were not associated with RTW after non-traumatic ABI and that both 'injury severity' (classified by the Glascow Coma Scale) and 'suffering from depression' or 'anxiety' were not associated with RTW after traumatic ABI. In addition strong evidence was found for the negative prognostic value on RTW of the 'inpatient length of stay', after traumatic ABI. Weak evidence was found for the three trainable/treatable factors 'ability to perform activities of daily living', 'residual physical deficits/higher disability level' and 'number of associated injuries'. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence was found that six variables either had no association or a negative association with RTW. It is recommended to focus in rehabilitation on the factors for which weak evidence was found but that are trainable/treatable with the goal of improving the process of vocational rehabilitation.