nach oben

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

Erschienen in:

26.05.2021 | Musculoskeletal Pain

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

verfasst von: M. Stienstra, M. J. A. Edelaar, B. Fritz, M. F. Reneman

Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.

Cimmino MA, Ferrone C, Cutolo M. Epidemiology of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25(2):173–83.PubMedCrossRef

van Hecke O, Torrance N, Smith BH. Chronic pain epidemiology and its clinical relevance. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(1):13–8.PubMedCrossRef

Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Pain. 2019;160(1):19–27.PubMedCrossRef

Bevan S. Economic impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on work in Europe. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015;29(3):356–73.PubMedCrossRef

Mather L, Ropponen A, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Narusyte J, Svedberg P. Health, work and demographic factors associated with a lower risk of work disability and unemployment in employees with lower back, neck and shoulder pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):622.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Tengland PA. The concept of work ability. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):275–85.PubMedCrossRef

Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K, Seitsamo J. New dimensions of work ability. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1280:3–7.CrossRef

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

van den Berg TI, Elders LA, de Zwart BC, Burdorf A. The effects of work-related and individual factors on the Work Ability Index: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66(4):211–20.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Radkiewicz P, Widerszal-Bazyl M. Psychometric properties of Work Ability Index in the light of comparative survey study. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1280:304–9.CrossRef

11.

Ebener M, Hasselhorn HM. Validation of short measures of work ability for research and employee surveys. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(18):3386.PubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Abdolalizadeh M, Arastoo AA, Ghsemzadeh R, Montazeri A, Ahmadi K, Azizi A. The psychometric properties of an Iranian translation of the Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(3):401–8.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Blik op werk. Available from: https://www.blikopwerk.nl/werkgever/duurzame-inzetbaarheid/work-ability-index/the-wai-in-the-netherlands [Accessed: May 2020].

14.

Bascour-Sandoval C, Soto-Rodríguez F, Muñoz-Poblete C, Marzuca-Nassr GN. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Work Ability Index in working individuals. J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(2):288–97.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kaewboonchoo O, Ratanasiripong P. Psychometric properties of the Thai version of the work ability index (Thai WAI). J Occup Health. 2015;57(4):371–7.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Alexopoulos E. Work Ability Index: validation of the Greek version and descriptive data in heavy industry employees. Br J Med Med Res. 2013;3(3):608–21.CrossRef

17.

Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, Dellve L. The Work Ability Index and single-item question: associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health–a prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(5):404–12.PubMedCrossRef

18.

El Fassi M, Bocquet V, Majery N, Lair ML, Couffignal S, Mairiaux P. Work ability assessment in a worker population: comparison and determinants of Work Ability Index and Work Ability score. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:305.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Torgén M. Experiences of WAI in a random sample of the Swedish working population. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1280:328–32.CrossRef

20.

Lundin A, Kjellberg K, Leijon O, Punnett L, Hemmingsson T. The association between self-assessed future work ability and long-term sickness absence, disability pension and unemployment in a general working population: A 7-year follow-up study. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(2):195–203.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN Study Design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments [PDF file]. Department of Epidemioly and Biostatistics: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc; 2019. p. 1–32.

23.

Beemster TT, van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CA, Frings-Dresen MH, Reneman MF. Cost-effectiveness of 40-hour versus 100-hour vocational rehabilitation on work participation for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic musculoskeletal pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:317.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Reneman MF, Beemster TT, Edelaar MJ, van Velzen JM, van Bennekom C, Escorpizo R. Towards an ICF- and IMMPACT-based pain vocational rehabilitation core set in the Netherlands. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(4):576–84.PubMedCrossRef

25.

van den Heuvel SG, Geuskens GA, Hooftman WE, Koppes LL, van den Bossche SN. Productivity loss at work; health-related and work-related factors. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):331–9.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Bouwmans C, Krol M, Severens H, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W, Hakkaart-van RL. The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire: a standardized instrument for measuring and valuing health-related productivity losses. Value Health. 2015;18(6):753–8.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Beemster T, van Bennekom C, van Velzen J, Reneman M, Frings-Dresen M. The interpretation of change score of the pain disability index after vocational rehabilitation is baseline dependent. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):182.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

Krops LA, Wolthuizen L, Dijkstra PU, Jaarsma EA, Geertzen JHB, Dekker R. Reliability of translation of the RAND 36-item health survey in a post-rehabilitation population. Int J Rehabil Res. 2018;41(2):128–37.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Van der Zee KI, Sanderman R. Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36, een handleiding. 2nd ed. Research Institute SHARE; 2012.

30.

Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94(2):149–58.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HCW, Hancock MJ. Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):760–6.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Mishra P, Pandey CM, Singh U, Gupta A, Sahu C, Keshri A. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22(1):67–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

34.

Beemster TT, van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CAM, Reneman MF, Frings-Dresen MHW. Test-retest reliability, agreement and responsiveness of productivity loss (iPCQ-VR) and healthcare utilization (TiCP-VR) questionnaires for sick workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(1):91–103.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

36.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? Injury. 2011;42(3):236–40.PubMedCrossRef

38.

van Schaaijk A, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Frings-Dresen MHW, Sluiter JK. Work ability and work functioning: measuring change in individuals recently returned to work. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019;92(3):423–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

39.

Voltmer JB, Deller J. Measuring work ability with its antecedents: evaluation of the Work Ability Survey. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(2):307–21.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Karlsson ML, Busch H, Aboagye E, Jensen I. Validation of a measure of health-related production loss: construct validity and responsiveness - a cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1148.CrossRef

41.

Vänni K, Virtanen P, Luukkaala T, Nygård CH. Relationship between perceived work ability and productivity loss. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2012;18(3):299–309.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM, Eisen SC, et al. Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for Social Security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(9):1645–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

43.

Mänty M, Kouvonen A, Lallukka T, Lahti J, Lahelma E, Rahkonen O. Changes in working conditions and physical health functioning among midlife and ageing employees. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2015;41(6):511–8.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Froud R, Abel G. Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally the forgotten lesson of pythagoras theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e114468.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

45.

Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, Tendal B, Hilden J, Hróbjartsson A. Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors systematic review of empirical studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:87–106.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(5):644–7.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Adel M, Akbar R, Ehsan G. Validity and reliability of Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire among Iranian workers; a study in petrochemical and car manufacturing industries. J Occup Health. 2019;61(2):165–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

48.

Sell L, Lund HL, Holtermann A, Søgaard K. The interactions between pain, pain-related fear of movement and productivity. Occup Med (Lond). 2014;64(5):376–81.CrossRef

49.

Escobar A, Riddle DL. Concordance between important change and acceptable symptom state following knee arthroplasty: the role of baseline scores. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014;22(8):1107–10.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Measurement Properties of the Work Ability Score in Sick-Listed Workers with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
verfasst von: M. Stienstra
M. J. A. Edelaar
B. Fritz
M. F. Reneman
Publikationsdatum: 26.05.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Schlagwörter: Musculoskeletal Pain
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation
Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09982-7

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Matching Perceived Physical Capacity and Work Demands: A New Classification of the Modified Spinal Function Sort (M-SFS)

Exploring Employer Perspectives on Their Supportive Role in Accommodating Workers with Disabilities to Promote Sustainable RTW: A Qualitative Study

Identifying Return to Work Self-Efficacy Trajectories in Employees with Mental Health Problems

Correction to: Effort-Reward Imbalance at Work and Overcommitment in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI): Associations with Return to Work 6 Months After AMI

The Value Filter: A Novel Framework for Psychosocial Adjustment to Traumatic Upper Extremity Amputation

First Contact Practitioners’ (FCPs) and General Practitioners’ Perceptions Towards FCPs Delivering Vocational Advice to Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Qualitative Investigation of the Implementation Potential of the I-SWAP Initiative