Complementary value of functional capacity evaluation for physicians in assessing the physical work ability of workers with musculoskeletal disorders

Linking the Spinal Function Sort and Functional Capacity Evaluation Tests to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set of Vocational Rehabilitation

Purpose The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Comprehensive Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation (CSVR) is a shortlist of functioning domains developed for use with people of working age that experience limitation in their work-related functional capacity. Functional capacity can be measured by, for example, Spinal Function Sort pictorial questionnaire and Functional Capacity Evaluation tests such as the: Complete Minnesota Dexterity Test, grip strength test, pushing, pulling, progressive iso-inertial lifting and carrying. However, these tests have not yet been linked to the CSVR. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent to which the Spinal Function Sort and Functional Capacity Evaluation tests could be mapped to the ICF categories of the CSVR. Methods Two raters independently performed the linking of the Spinal Function Sort and the Functional Capacity Evaluation related tests to the CSVR according to established ICF linking rules. If an item could not accurately be linked to a CSVR category, the item was linked to the most fitting ICF category. Disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting. Interrater agreement between raters was expressed in percentage agreement. Results The Spinal Function Sort and Functional Capacity Evaluation tests described a total of 39 unique ICF categories, out of which only six (15%) came from the CSVR. Interrater agreement ranged between 17 and 91%. Conclusions The study found six categories including vestibular functions, muscle power functions, writing, lifting and carrying objects, fine hand use and hand and arm use within the CSVR using the Spinal Function Sort and The Complete Minnesota Dexterity Test. With the rest of the items, the CSVR was considered too broad.

Influence of Physical Therapists' Kinesiophobic Beliefs on Lifting Capacity in Healthy Adults

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists' recommendations to patients to avoid daily physical activity can be influenced by the therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs. Little is known about the amount of influence of a physical therapist's kinesiophobic beliefs on a patient's actual lifting capacity during a lifting test.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the influence of physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs on lifting capacity in healthy people.

DESIGN

A blinded, cluster-randomized cross-sectional study was performed.

METHODS

The participants (n=256; 105 male, 151 female) were physical therapist students who performed a lifting capacity test. Examiners (n=24) were selected from second-year physical therapist students. Participants in group A (n=124) were tested in the presence of an examiner with high scores on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for health care providers (TSK-HC), and those in group B (n=132) were tested in the presence of an examiner with low scores on the TSK-HC. Mixed-model analyses were performed on lifting capacity to test for possible (interacting) effects.

RESULTS

Mean lifting capacity was 32.1 kg (SD=13.6) in group A and 39.6 kg (SD=16.4) in group B. Mixed-model analyses revealed that after controlling for sex, body weight, self-efficacy, and the interaction between the examiners' and participants' kinesiophobic beliefs, the influence of examiners' kinesiophobic beliefs significantly reduced lifting capacity by 14.4 kg in participants with kinesiophobic beliefs and 8.0 kg in those without kinesiophobic beliefs.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability to physical therapists and patients with pain should be studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs negatively influence lifting capacity of healthy adults. During everyday clinical practice, physical therapists should be aware of the influence of their kinesiophobic beliefs on patients' functional ability.

Functional Capacity Evaluation: Performance of Patients with Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain Without Waddell Signs

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of Waddell signs (WS) on Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) undergoing fitness for work evaluation. If an effect is observed, the secondary objective is to report performance of patients without WS in a standardized 1 day FCE protocol.

METHODS

Survey of patients with CNSLBP as their primary complaint, referred for fitness for work evaluation, age between 20 and 60 years. Main outcome measures were WS and performance during manual handling assessed with lifting from floor to waist, waist to crown, horizontal and one handed carry; grip strength with Jamar hand held Dynamometer; ambulation with stair climbing and six minute walking test; work postures with elevated work, forward bend standing, kneeling, and sitting.

RESULTS

145 male with a mean age of 44.5 years (±10.1), and 53 females with a mean age of 43.6 years (±11.0) were included. Mean days off work were in male 658 (±1,056) and in female 642 (±886). 33% of all patients presented positive WS. FCE performance in male and female patients with positive and negative WS differed significantly in all comparisons except grip strength of the dominant hand and sitting in female. Performance of patients with negative WS indicated a mean physical capacity corresponding to lightmedium work in females and medium work in males for both age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

WS should be assessed for interpretation of FCE results. Despite long work absence, patients with CNSLBP with negative WS demonstrated a physical capacity corresponding to substantial physical work demands.

Experts opinion on the use of normative data for functional capacity evaluation in occupational and rehabilitation medicine and disability claims

PURPOSE

Application of normative values for functional capacity evaluation (FCE) is controversial for the assessment of clients for work ability. The objective of this study was to study when clinicians and researchers consider normative values of FCE useful or of no use for their purposes.

METHODS

A focus group meeting was organized among 43 FCE experts working in insurance, occupational and/or rehabilitation medicine from eight countries during the first international FCE research meeting on October 25th, 2012 in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to rate to which degree they agree or disagree with a statement concerning their position toward normative values for FCE on a 10 cm VAS ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 100 (completely agree) at T0 and T1. Arguments for aspects that are useful and of no use for normative values were systematically collected during the meeting and afterwards independently clustered by two researchers in higher order topics.

RESULTS

Baseline opinion of participants on their position toward normative values was 49 ± 29 points. After the meeting, mean VAS was 55 ± 23 (p = 0.07), indicating that participants did not significantly change their opinion toward normative values. Based on arguments provided by the experts, seven higher order topics were constructed namely 'Comparison with job demands or treatment goals'; 'Comparison with co-workers physical ability'; 'Sincerity of effort'; 'Validity for work ability and return to work'; 'Experience of referrer with assessment method'; 'Clinimetrics compared to alternative assessment methods or reference values'; and 'Ease of use for clinician and stakeholders'.

CONCLUSIONS

Although experts state useful aspects for the use of normative values of FCE for these assessments, it may also lead to over-interpretation of results, leading to dualistic statements concerning work ability, with potential harmful consequences for work ability of patients.

Developing a Best-Evidence Pre-employment Medical Examination: An Example from the Construction Industry

The Dutch construction industry has introduced a compulsory preemployment medical examination (PE-ME). Best-evidence contents related to specific job demands are, however, lacking and need to be gathered. After the identification of job demands and health problems in the construction industry (systematic literature search and expert meeting), specific job demands and related requirements were defined and instruments proposed. Finally, a work ability assessment was linked to the instruments' outcomes, resulting in the modular character of the developed PE-ME. Twenty-two specific job demands for all Dutch construction jobs were identified, including kneeling/squatting, working under time pressure, and exposure to hazardous substances. The next step was proposing self-report questions, screening questionnaires, clinical tests, and/or performance-based tests, leading to a work ability judgment. "Lifting/carrying" is described as an example. The new modular PE-ME enables a job-specific assessment of work ability to be made for more than 100 jobs in the Dutch construction industry.

Reliability of clinician rated physical effort determination during functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

INTRODUCTION

Functional capacity evaluation (FCE) can be used to make clinical decisions regarding fitness-for-work. During FCE the evaluator attempts to assess the amount of physical effort of the patient. The aim of this study is to analyze the reliability of physical effort determination using observational criteria during FCE.

METHODS

Twenty-one raters assessed physical effort in 18 video-recorded FCE tests independently on two occasions, 10 months apart. Physical effort was rated on a categorical four-point physical effort determination scale (PED) based on the Isernhagen criteria, and a dichotomous submaximal effort determination scale (SED). Cohen's Kappa, squared weighted Kappa and % agreement were calculated.

RESULTS

Kappa values for intra-rater reliability of PED and SED for all FCE tests were 0.49 and 0.68 respectively. Kappa values for inter-rater reliability of PED for all FCE tests in the first and the second session were 0.51, and 0.72, and for SED Kappa values were 0.68 and 0.77 respectively. The inter-rater reliability of PED ranged from κ = 0.02 to κ = 0.99 between FCE tests. Acceptable reliability scores (κ > 0.60, agreement ≥80 %) for each FCE test were observed in 38 % of scores for PED and 67 % for SED. On average material handling tests had a higher reliability than postural tolerance and ambulatory tests.

CONCLUSION

Dichotomous ratings of submaximal effort are more reliable than categorical criteria to determine physical effort in FCE tests. Regular education and training may improve the reliability of observational criteria for effort determination.

Vocational rehabilitation process and work life

This article describes the evolution of vocational rehabilitation and the development of the rehabilitation counselor's role as the generally accepted expert in forensic vocational rehabilitation assessment. The vocational rehabilitation process is discussed within an empirically derived structural model of forensic vocational assessment. The concept of work-life expectancy is discussed as a key feature in estimating the duration of time vocational damages are likely to occur based on a person's remaining work participation.

Evaluation of work disability and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: what to expect and what not

BACKGROUND

Individuals who are sick and unable to work may receive wage replacement benefits from an insurer. For these provisions, a disability evaluation is required. This disability evaluation is criticised for lack of standardisation and transparency. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) was developed to express the situation of people with disability. We discuss potential benefits of the ICF to structure and phrase disability evaluation in the field of social insurance. We describe core features of disability evaluation of the ICF across countries. We address how and to what extent the ICF may be applied in disability evaluation.

DISCUSSION

The medical reports in disability evaluation contain the following core features: health condition, functional capacity, socio-medical history, feasibility of interventions and prognosis of work disability. Reports also address consistency, causal relations according to legal requirements, and ability to work. The ICF consists of a conceptual framework of functioning, disability and health, definitions referring to functioning, disability and health, and a hierarchical classification of these definitions. The ICF component 'activities and participation' is suited to capture functional capacity. Interventions can be described as environmental factors but these would need an additional qualifier to indicate feasibility. The components 'participation' and 'environmental factors' are suited to capture work requirements. The socio-medical history, the prognosis, and legal requirements are problematic to capture with both the ICF framework and classification.

SUMMARY

The ICF framework reflects modern thinking in disability evaluation. It allows for the medical expert to describe work disability as a bio-psycho-social concept, and what components are of importance in disability evaluation for the medical expert. The ICF definitions for body functions, structures, activity and participation, and environmental factors cover essential parts of disability evaluation. The ICF framework and definitions are however limited with respect to comprehensive descriptions of work disability.

Are performance-based measures predictive of work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Assessments of whether patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) can participate in work mainly consist of case history, physical examinations, and self-reports. Performance-based measures might add value in these assessments. This study answers the question: how well do performance-based measures predict work participation in patients with MSDs?

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to obtain longitudinal studies that used reliable performance-based measures to predict work participation in patients with MSDs. The following five sources of information were used to retrieve relevant studies: PubMed, Embase, AMA Guide to the Evaluation of Functional Ability, references of the included papers, and the expertise and personal file of the authors. A quality assessment specific for prognostic studies and an evidence synthesis were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 1,230 retrieved studies, eighteen fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies included 4,113 patients, and the median follow-up period was 12 months. Twelve studies took possible confounders into account. Five studies were of good quality and thirteen of moderate quality. Two good-quality and all thirteen moderate-quality studies (83%) reported that performance-based measures were predictive of work participation. Two good-quality studies (11%) reported both an association and no association between performance-based measures and work participation. One good-quality study (6%) found no effect. A performance-based lifting test was used in fourteen studies and appeared to be predictive of work participation in thirteen studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong evidence exists that a number of performance-based measures are predictive of work participation in patients with MSDs, especially lifting tests. Overall, the explained variance was modest.

Functional capacity of people with early osteoarthritis: a comparison between subjects from the cohort hip and cohort knee (CHECK) and healthy ageing workers

Objective

The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) increases, but the impact of the disorder on peoples’ functional capacity is not known. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare self-reported health status and functional capacity of subjects with early OA of hip and/or knee to reference data of healthy working subjects and to assess whether this capacity is sufficient to meet physical job demands.

Methods

Self-reported health status and functional capacity of 93 subjects from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) were measured using the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and 6 tests of the Work Well Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation. Results were compared with reference data from 275 healthy workers, using t-tests. To compare the functional capacity with job demands, the proportions of subjects with OA performing lower than the p₅ of reference data were calculated.

Results

Compared to healthy workers, the subjects (mean age 56) from CHECK at baseline reported a significantly worse physical health status, whereas the women (n = 78) also reported a worse mental health status. On the FCE female OA subjects performed significantly lower than their healthy working counterparts on all 6 tests. Male OA subjects performed lower than male workers on 3 tests. A substantial proportion of women demonstrated functional capacities that could be considered insufficient to perform jobs with low physical demands.

Conclusions

Functional capacity and self-reported health of subjects with early OA of the hips and knees were worse compared to healthy ageing workers. A substantial proportion of female subjects did not meet physical job demands.

Health professional's perceptions and practices in relation to functional capacity evaluations: results of a quantitative survey

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated the perceptions and practices of Australian health professionals in relation to the use of functional capacity evaluations (FCE's).

METHODS

A quantitative cross-sectional study design was used to survey health professionals who conduct FCE's and who were working for one of 219 rehabilitation providers in NSW, Australia. Seventy seven returned surveys were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Eleven different FCE's were being utilised with many health professionals using more than one FCE. The most commonly used FCE was non-standardised (56%, n = 43) followed by 52% (n = 40) using the Workhab, and 18% (n = 14) using Valpar. Both non-standardised and standardised assessments were being used by 90% (n = 69) of respondents. Health professionals reported using all or parts of the FCE, and indicated identical FCE's are not always conducted, with adaptation of the FCE, due to client injury (82%, n = 62) and job (80%, n = 43) occurring. About 60% of respondents had no choice in the type of FCE they conducted, and of the 40% with a choice, this was not influenced by other stakeholders in the process. Accreditation and training, characteristics of assessment tasks, standardisation, reliability, cost, length and flexibility were all identified as factors affecting the selection of an FCE.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that health professionals in NSW Australia, are not routinely using standardised tools for FCE's. Health professional perceptions suggest accreditation, training and the characteristics of the FCE were important factors in FCE selection. In practice, participants tended to use parts of an FCE rather than the whole FCE. Adaptation of FCE's was common, due to client injury and specific job requirements.