Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

Intermethod agreement of self-reports compared to register data collection for return to work and sickness absence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the intermethod agreement of self-reported vs. register data of 'sickness absence' (SA) and 'return to work' (RTW) outcome measurements.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies reporting mean differences (MDs) and sensitivity and specificity for self-report vs. register data and an inductive analysis of the self-report question formulations. An information specialist searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO for studies published from inception to November 2022. Screening and data extraction was done by two authors independently.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included of which eighteen with an overall high risk of bias. Self-reports had a pooled MD of 1.84 SA days (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-3.41, I2 98%, 18 studies, 38,716 participants) compared to registries which varied among studies from 204 more to 17 days less. The median average sick leave in studies in the self-report group was 8 days (interquartile range 4-23 days). Being absent from work measured with self-report had a sensitivity of 0.83 (0.76-0.88 95% CI) and a specificity of 0.92 (0.88-0.94 95% CI) compared to registry data. The high heterogeneity amongst the studies could not be explained by recall time, gender, register type, prospective or retrospective self-reports, health problem, SA at baseline or risk of bias. Studies lacked standard outcome reporting, had unclearly formulated questions in self-reports and there was little information on the registers' quality.

CONCLUSION

Current self-reports may differ from register-based absence data but in an inconsistent way. Due to inconsistency and high risk of bias the evidence is judged to be of very low certainty. Further research is needed to develop clear standard questions which can be used for SA and RTW self-reports. Quality of registers needs to be better evaluated. Percentage positive and negative agreement, MDs and 2 × 2 tables should be reported for studies investigating agreement between SA and RTW outcome measures.

Predictors for work participation of people with visual impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess factors associated with work participation in people with visual impairments and to explore how these factors may have changed over time.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase.com, EBSCO/APA PsycInfo, EBSCO/CINAHL and EBSCO/ERIC from database inception to 1 April 2022 was performed. We included studies with cross-sectional design, case-control, case-series or cohort design, involving visually impaired working-age adults with at least moderate visual impairment, and evaluated the association between visual impairment and work participation. Studies involving participants with deaf-blindness or multiple disabilities were excluded. We assessed study quality (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [NOS]), examined between-study heterogeneity and performed subgroup analyses. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42021241076.

RESULTS

Of 13,585 records, 57 articles described 55 studies including 1,326,091 participants from mostly high-income countries. Sociodemographic factors associated with employment included higher education (odds ratio [OR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47 to 4.51, I2 0%), being male (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.84, I2 95%), having a partner (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.67, I2 34%), white ethnicity (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.74, I2 0%) and having financial assistance (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.55, I2 85%). Disease-related factors included worse visual impairment (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, I2 98%) or having additional disabilities (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.62, I2 16%). Intervention-related factors included mobility aid utilisation (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18, I2 94%). A potential moderating effect of time period and geographical region was observed for some factors. Study quality (NOS) was rated moderate to high.

CONCLUSION

Several sociodemographic and disease related factors were associated with employment status. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of overall high heterogeneity. Future research should focus on the role of workplace factors, technological adjustments and vocational rehabilitation services on work participation.

Protocol for a multicenter study on effectiveness and economics of the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS): a clinical pathway for knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Optimizing return to work (RTW) after knee arthroplasty (KA) is becoming increasingly important due to a growing incidence of KA and poor RTW outcomes after KA. We developed the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS) clinical pathway for optimized RTW after KA. Since the effectiveness and cost analysis of the BAAS clinical pathway are still unknown, analysis on effectiveness and costs of BAAS is imperative.

METHOD

This protocol paper has been written in line with the standards of Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trails. To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for RTW, we will perform a multicenter prospective cohort study with patients who decided to receive a total KA (TKA) or an unicompartmental KA (UKA). To evaluate the effectiveness of BAAS regarding RTW, a comparison to usual care will be made using individual patient data on RTW from prospectively performed cohort studies in the Netherlands.

DISCUSSION

One of the strengths of this study is that the feasibility for the BAAS clinical pathway was tested at first hand. Also, we will use validated questionnaires and functional tests to assess the patient's recovery using robust outcomes. Moreover, the intervention was performed in two hospitals serving the targeted patient group and to reduce selection bias and improve generalizability. The limitations of this study protocol are that the lead author has an active role as a medical case manager (MCM) in one of the hospitals. Additionally, we will use the data from other prospective Dutch cohort studies to compare our findings regarding RTW to usual care. Since we will not perform an RCT, we will use propensity analysis to reduce the bias due to possible differences between these cohorts.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrails.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05690347 , date of first registration: 19-01-2023).

Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Cancer, Work & Employment”

This paper is an overview of the International Scientific Conference on “Cancer, Work & Employment” that was held in Paris on November 21 and 22, 2022, and organized by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa). The conference was structured around four keynote presentations and two roundtables, with renowned international speakers. The focus of this conference was to discuss the challenges of return or access to work and job retention when facing cancer, from interdisciplinary perspectives (e.g., psychology, sociology, economics). Speakers analyzed return-to-work (RTW) determinants for cancer patients, with a particular focus on specific forms of cancer, working conditions (e.g., self-employment, adaptations at work when returning), and the influence of differences in social welfare systems. Current interventions to support RTW were analyzed, from the patient’s point of view and in terms of improving healthcare professionals’ practices. Prospects for future research in the field were also discussed (e.g., focus on underrepresented populations, considering the influence of longer treatments, incorporating changes in career paths). Finally, the broad spectrum of disciplines and the diversity in involved countries offered a rare opportunity to exchange ideas and helped initiate collaboration between participants.

Which outcomes should always be measured in intervention studies for improving work participation for people with a health problem? An international multistakeholder Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for Work participation (COS for Work)

OBJECTIVE

Synthesising evidence of the effects of interventions to improve work participation among people with health problems is currently difficult due to heterogeneity in outcome measurements. A core outcome set for work participation is needed.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Following the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials methodology, we used a five-step approach to reach international multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set for work participation. Five subgroups of stakeholders took part in two rounds of discussions and completed two Delphi voting rounds on 26 outcomes. A consensus of ≥80% determined core outcomes and 50%-80% consensus was required for candidate outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight stakeholders took part in the Delphi rounds. Core outcomes were: 'any type of employment including self-employment', 'proportion of workers that return to work after being absent because of illness' and 'time to return to work'. Ten candidate outcomes were proposed, among others: 'sustainable employment', 'work productivity' and 'workers' perception of return to work'.

CONCLUSION

As a minimum, all studies evaluating the impact of interventions on work participation should include one employment outcome and two return to work outcomes if workers are on sick leave prior to the intervention.

A general framework for selecting work participation outcomes in intervention studies among persons with health problems: a concept paper

Background

Work participation is important for health and can be considered as engagement in a major area of life which is of significance for most people, but it can also be thought of as fulfilling or discharging a role. Currently, academic research lacks a comprehensive classification of work participation outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning is the foremost model in defining work functioning and its counterpart work disability, but it does not provide a critical (core) set of outcomes. Standardizing the definitions and nomenclature used in the research of work participation would ensure that the outcomes of studies are comparable, and practitioners and guideline developers can better decide what works best. As work participation is a broad umbrella term including outcome categories which need unambiguous differentiation, a framework needs to be developed first.

Aim

To propose a framework which can be used to develop a generic core outcome set for work participation.

Methods

First, we performed a systematic literature search on the concept of (work) participation, views on how to measure it, and on existing classifications for outcome measurements. Next, we derived criteria for the framework and proposed a framework based on the criteria. Last, we applied the framework to six case studies as a proof of concept.

Results

Our literature search provided 2106 hits and we selected 59 studies for full-text analysis. Based on the literature and the developed criteria we propose four overarching outcome categories: (1) initiating employment, (2) having employment, (3) increasing or maintaining productivity at work, and (4) return to employment. These categories appeared feasible in our proof-of-concept assessment with six different case studies.

Conclusion

We propose to use the framework for work participation outcomes to develop a core outcome set for intervention studies to improve work participation.