1
|
Ravinskaya M, Verbeek JH, Langendam M, Daams JG, Hulshof CTJ, Hoving JL. Intermethod agreement of self-reports compared to register data collection for return to work and sickness absence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 165:111209. [PMID: 37931821 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Revised: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/31/2023] [Indexed: 11/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margarita Ravinskaya
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Jos H Verbeek
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Miranda Langendam
- Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joost G Daams
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Carel T J Hulshof
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan L Hoving
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Daniëls R, van Nispen RM, de Vries R, Donker-Cools BHPM, Schaafsma FG, Hoving JL. Predictors for work participation of people with visual impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2023; 43:1223-1254. [PMID: 37449334 DOI: 10.1111/opo.13188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Revised: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Daniëls
- Social Medical Department, Dutch Social Security Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Ophthalmology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Quality of Care, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, and Research Centre for Insurance Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ruth M van Nispen
- Ophthalmology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Quality of Care, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ralph de Vries
- Medical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Birgit H P M Donker-Cools
- Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, and Research Centre for Insurance Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frederieke G Schaafsma
- Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, and Research Centre for Insurance Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan L Hoving
- Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, and Research Centre for Insurance Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Strijbos DO, van der Sluis G, van Houtert WFC, Straat AC, van Zaanen Y, de Groot S, Klomp S, Krijnen WP, Kooijman CM, van den Brand I, Reneman MF, Boymans TAEJ, Kuijer PPFM. Protocol for a multicenter study on effectiveness and economics of the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS): a clinical pathway for knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023; 24:199. [PMID: 36927339 PMCID: PMC10018987 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06203-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/18/2023] Open
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniël O. Strijbos
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Societal Participation and Health, Quality of Care, Van Der Boechorststraat 8, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Sports, Rehabilitation & Development, Van Der Boechorststraat 7-9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- grid.477604.60000 0004 0396 9626Department of Health Innovations, Nij Smellinghe Hospital Drachten, Compagnonsplein 1, Drachten, 9202 NN the Netherlands
| | - Geert van der Sluis
- grid.477604.60000 0004 0396 9626Department of Health Innovations, Nij Smellinghe Hospital Drachten, Compagnonsplein 1, Drachten, 9202 NN the Netherlands
- grid.411989.c0000 0000 8505 0496Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, Zernikeplein 7, 9747 AS Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Wim F. C. van Houtert
- grid.477604.60000 0004 0396 9626Department of Health Innovations, Nij Smellinghe Hospital Drachten, Compagnonsplein 1, Drachten, 9202 NN the Netherlands
- grid.411989.c0000 0000 8505 0496Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, Zernikeplein 7, 9747 AS Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - A. Carlien Straat
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Societal Participation and Health, Quality of Care, Van Der Boechorststraat 8, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Sports, Rehabilitation & Development, Van Der Boechorststraat 7-9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Yvonne van Zaanen
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Simon Klomp
- a.S.R. Insurances, Archimedeslaan 10, 3584 BA Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Wim P. Krijnen
- grid.411989.c0000 0000 8505 0496Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, Zernikeplein 7, 9747 AS Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Carolien M. Kooijman
- grid.477604.60000 0004 0396 9626Department of Health Innovations, Nij Smellinghe Hospital Drachten, Compagnonsplein 1, Drachten, 9202 NN the Netherlands
| | - Igor van den Brand
- grid.416373.40000 0004 0472 8381Department of Orthopaedics, Elizabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Doctor Deelenlaan 5, 5042 AD Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - Michiel F. Reneman
- grid.4830.f0000 0004 0407 1981Department of Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Tim A. E. J. Boymans
- grid.412966.e0000 0004 0480 1382Maastricht UMC +, Department of Orthopaedics, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - P. Paul F. M. Kuijer
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health, Societal Participation and Health, Quality of Care, Van Der Boechorststraat 8, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Musculoskeletal Health, Sports, Rehabilitation & Development, Van Der Boechorststraat 7-9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gérain P, Aurouet P, Foucaud J. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Cancer, Work & Employment”. PSYCHO-ONCOLOGIE 2023. [DOI: 10.3166/pson-2022-0227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/31/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
5
|
Ravinskaya M, Verbeek JH, Langendam M, Madan I, Verstappen SMM, Kunz R, Hulshof CTJ, Hoving JL. 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). BMJ Open 2023; 13:e069174. [PMID: 36792339 PMCID: PMC9933745 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/17/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margarita Ravinskaya
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Cochrane Work, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jos H Verbeek
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Cochrane Work, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Miranda Langendam
- Department Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ira Madan
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK
| | - Suzanne M M Verstappen
- Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Health and Work, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Regina Kunz
- Research Unit EbIM, Evidence Based Insurance Medicine, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Carel T J Hulshof
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan L Hoving
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Cochrane Work, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
A general framework for selecting work participation outcomes in intervention studies among persons with health problems: a concept paper. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:2189. [DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14564-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|