Sensibility of five at-work productivity measures was endorsed by patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis

A Sensibility Assessment of the Job Demands and Accommodation Planning Tool (JDAPT): A Tool to Help Workers with an Episodic Disability Plan Workplace Support

Purpose Sensibility refers to a tool's comprehensiveness, understandability, relevance, feasibility, and length. It is used in the early development phase to begin assessing a new tool or intervention. This study examined the sensibility of the job demands and accommodation planning tool (JDAPT). The JDAPT identifies job demands related to physical, cognitive, interpersonal, and working conditions to better target strategies for workplace supports and accommodations aimed at assisting individuals with chronic health conditions. Methods Workers with a chronic health condition and workplace representatives were recruited from health charities, workplaces, and newsletters using convenience sampling. Cognitive interviews assessed the JDAPT's sensibility. A 70% endorsement rate was the minimum level of acceptability for sensibility concepts. A short screening tool also was administered, and answers compared to the complete JDAPT. Results Participants were 46 workers and 23 organizational representatives (n = 69). Endorsements highly exceeded the 70% cut-off for understandability, relevance, and length. Congruence between screening questions and the complete JDAPT suggested both workers and organizational representatives overlooked job demands when completing the screener. Participants provided additional examples and three new items to improve comprehensiveness. The JDAPT was rated highly relevant and useful, although not always easy to complete for someone with an episodic condition. Conclusions This study highlights the need for tools that facilitate accommodations for workers with episodic disabilities and provides early evidence for the sensibility of the JDAPT.

A 5 item version of the Workplace Activity Limitation Scale successfully identifies impaired work productivity in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A split-sample factor analysis approach

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in studying the effects of arthritis on a person's work productivity using a growing variety of outcome indicators.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a valid and reliable shortened version of the Workplace Activity Limitation Scale 12 (WALS-12) for assessing work productivity limitations in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study involving 277 RA patients was conducted. An exploratory factor analysis on WALS-12 was used for item reduction on the first sample. Then confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was run to establish the best fit indices of the reduced version. On the second sample, CFA and linear discriminant analysis were performed to assess the diagnostic performance and discriminant ability of the reduced form. A Bland-Altman method was used to find the agreement between the WALS-12 and the reduced one.

RESULTS

The WALS-12 was reduced to 5 items. The Cronbach α was 0.817, with a composite reliability of 0.715. The Spearman rho correlation coefficient ranged between 0.675 and 0.795 for WALS-5, which was higher for the scale items with their domains than the correlation of WALS-5 with the domains of Work Limitations Questionnaire-25. Also, the root square of the average variant extracted from WALS-5 was 0.802. WALS-5 showed excellent discriminant ability with an area under the curve of 0.98 (P < .001), sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 82%, and accuracy of 94%. The reduced version WALS-5 was in agreement with the original version WALS-12.

CONCLUSIONS

WALS-5 is a valid and reliable tool to assess the work productivity limitations in RA patients.

The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score: A Critical Appraisal of Its Measurement Properties and Applicability to the Air Retrieval Environment

OBJECTIVE

The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) was designed to predict in-hospital mortality using variables that are available in the prehospital setting. The objective of this article is to critically appraise the development and summarize the evidence regarding the measurement properties (sensitivity, reliability and validity) of the REMS.

METHODS

A literature search was performed identifying all studies describing the REMS. The original validation study was critically appraised for its development. All other studies that reported any measurement properties of the REMS were also appraised for evidence of calibration, reliability, and validity.

RESULTS

In total, 26 studies reported on the measurement properties of the REMS. Overall, the REMS was developed with robust methodology and has good sensibility with adequate content and face validity. It is easy to understand and feasible to be calculated within minutes of patient assessment. The REMS has the necessary measurement properties to be both a predictive and evaluative clinical index to measure prehospital severity of illness; however, no studies have adequately addressed the intra or inter-rater reliability of the score.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to support the use of the REMS as a predictive or evaluative instrument. In most studies, it performed as well or better than other illness severity scores in predicting mortality.

Workability for persons with chronic diseases. A systematic review of validity and utility of assessments in German language / Valide und praktikable deutschsprachige Assessments zur Erfassung der Arbeitsfähigkeit bei Menschen mit chronischen Erkrankungen – eine systematische Review

Background

People with chronic diseases are often limited in their workability. Evaluating and enabling workability is central in rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate validity and utility of workability assessments in German for persons with chronic diseases.

Methods

The study is a systematic review. First, we systematically searched for literature in the databases Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane HTA Database, DARE, CCMed, Sowiport, and BASE using following keywords: evaluation tool, chronic disease, workability, validity, and utility. Then, we evaluated the content and the quality of the studies based on criteria and decided if they were included.

Results

In total, validity and utility of eight workability assessments are described based on 74 studies. The assessments are: Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ), Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS), Screening-Instrument Arbeit und Beruf (SIBAR), Screening-Instrument zur Feststellung des Bedarfs an medizinisch-beruflich orientierten Maßnahmen in der medizinischen Rehabilitation (SIMBO), Valuation of Lost Productivity Questionnaire (VOLP), Work Ability Index (WAI/ABI), Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI).

Conclusion

The results revealed the availability of eight workability assessments for persons with chronic diseases in German language. They have strengths and weaknesses in relation to the construct, purpose, application, and evidence base. These could be the base for choice of an assessment. Overall, we suggest using workability assessment in order to meet the legal requirements for the use of standardized assessments and the increasing demand to establish evidence of the effectiveness of interventions.

Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Literature Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Arthritis Work Outcome Assessments: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically rate the evidence on the measurement properties of work functioning instruments for people with arthritis and other rheumatologic conditions.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted through a structured search to identify the quality of articles describing studies of assessment development and studies of their psychometric properties. The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to appraise the included studies. Finally, an evidence synthesis was performed to combine findings.

RESULTS

Nine arthritis-specific work outcome assessments were identified; 17 articles examining the psychometric properties of these instruments were identified and their quality was reviewed. Quality of studies was highly variable. The evidence synthesis showed that the Work Limitations Questionnaire had the strongest quality evidence of internal consistency and content validity (including structural validity and hypothesis testing), followed by the Work Instability Scale. None of the instruments had strong quality evidence of criterion validity or responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

Considering the high variability and the low quality of the literature, we recommend that instrument developers integrate a full psychometric assessment of their instruments, including responsiveness and criterion validity, and consult guidelines (i.e., COSMIN) in reporting their findings.

Reliability and Validity of the Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Rheumatoid Arthritis-Work Instability Scale (RA-WIS) in a clinical trial setting.

METHODS

Secondary analyses were conducted using data from a 56-week, randomized controlled trial of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patient-reported outcome measures included the RA-WIS, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Pain, data for which were collected at baseline and at weeks 12, 16, 24, and 56. Data were analyzed for reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

RESULTS

Among 148 patients whose data were analyzed, more than half were women (56.1%) with a mean age of 46.8 years. On average, patients experienced RA symptoms for 8.7 months; the mean 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) was 5.9, and the mean HAQ - Disability Index was 1.3. The RA-WIS demonstrated excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability (α = 0.89 and intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91, respectively). At baseline and week 24, moderate to strong correlations were seen between RA-WIS total scores and the HAQ, the Global Assessment of Disease Activity, and the Pain Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire, ranging from 0.47 to 0.81 (all P < 0.0001). Mean RA-WIS total scores and work disability risk levels discriminated between clinical severity scores on the DAS28, the HAQ - Disability Index, and the Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity (all P < 0.05). Mean baseline to week 24 RA-WIS total change scores were significantly different among American College of Rheumatology responder groups (P ≤ 0.0001) and between DAS28 remission status groups (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide evidence supporting the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the RA-WIS for evaluating work disability in patients with RA in a clinical trial setting.

A Call for Evidence-based Decision Making When Selecting Outcome Measurement Instruments for Summary of Findings Tables in Systematic Reviews: Results from an OMERACT Working Group

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews often struggle with how to combine information when more than 1 instrument is used across studies being synthesized. Different techniques have been suggested based on frequency of use in the literature, or on consensus. We explore an approach blending 2 initiatives: OMERACT (Outcome Measurement in Rheumatology) and COSMIN (Consensus On Selection of Measurement Instruments), and investigate the effects of an evidence-based measurement approach on selection of outcomes.

METHODS

Readings were circulated to attendees registered for a preconference workshop on pain measurement. Three instruments were considered and exercises conducted to engage people in the content and measurement performance of these tools. Consensus was sought that an evidence-based approach could be created for selection of instruments for summary of findings (SoF) tables.

RESULTS

The blending of COSMIN and OMERACT approaches led to an evidence-based approach that depended both on a clear definition of target concept and a review of measurement performance of the instrument. Participants emphasized that conceptual clarity and practical considerations should come before measurement property results.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based approaches can be adopted for selection of instruments for SoF tables. A research agenda was formulated.

OMERACT Filter Evidence Supporting the Measurement of At-work Productivity Loss as an Outcome Measure in Rheumatology Research

OBJECTIVE

Indicators of work role functioning (being at work, and being productive while at work) are important outcomes for persons with arthritis. As the worker productivity working group at OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology), we sought to provide an evidence base for consensus on standardized instruments to measure worker productivity [both absenteeism and at-work productivity (presenteeism) as well as critical contextual factors].

METHODS

Literature reviews and primary studies were done and reported to the OMERACT 12 (2014) meeting to build the OMERACT Filter 2.0 evidence for worker productivity outcome measurement instruments. Contextual factor domains that could have an effect on scores on worker productivity instruments were identified by nominal group techniques, and strength of influence was further assessed by literature review.

RESULTS

At OMERACT 9 (2008), we identified 6 candidate measures of absenteeism, which received 94% endorsement at the plenary vote. At OMERACT 11 (2012) we received over the required minimum vote of 70% for endorsement of 2 at-work productivity loss measures. During OMERACT 12 (2014), out of 4 measures of at-work productivity loss, 3 (1 global; 2 multiitem) received support as having passed the OMERACT Filter with over 70% of the plenary vote. In addition, 3 contextual factor domains received a 95% vote to explore their validity as core contextual factors: nature of work, work accommodation, and workplace support.

CONCLUSION

Our current recommendations for at-work productivity loss measures are: WALS (Workplace Activity Limitations Scale), WLQ PDmod (Work Limitations Questionnaire with modified physical demands scale), WAI (Work Ability Index), WPS (Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey), and WPAI (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire). Our future research focus will shift to confirming core contextual factors to consider in the measurement of worker productivity.

Productivity at work and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

The aim of this study was to determine which combination of personal, disease-related and environmental factors is best associated with at-work productivity loss in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to determine whether at-work productivity loss is associated with the quality of life for these patients.

Methods

This study is based on cross-sectional data. Patients completed a questionnaire with personal, disease-related and environmental factors (related to the work environment), and clinical characteristics were obtained from patient medical records. At-work productivity loss was measured with the Work Limitations Questionnaire, and quality of life with the RAND 36. Using linear regression analyses, a multivariate model was built containing the combination of factors best associated with at-work productivity loss. This model was cross-validated internally. We furthermore determined whether at-work productivity loss was associated with quality of life using linear regression analyses.

Results

We found that at-work productivity loss was associated with workers who had poorer mental health, more physical role limitations, were ever treated with a biological therapeutic medication, were not satisfied with their work, and had more work instability (R² = 0.50 and R² following cross-validation was 0.32). We found that at-work productivity loss was negatively associated with health-related quality of life, especially with dimensions of mental health, physical role limitations, and pain.

Conclusions

We found that at-work productivity loss was associated with personal, work-related, and clinical factors. Although our study results should be interpreted with caution, they provide insight into patients with RA who are at risk for at-work productivity loss.

Sensibility of a new instrument to assess clinical reasoning in post-graduate orthopaedic manual physical therapy education

Sound application of clinical reasoning (CR) by the physical therapist is critical to achieving optimal patient outcomes. As such, it is important for institutions granting certification in orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT) to ensure that the assessment of CR is sufficiently robust. At present, the dearth of validated instruments to assess CR in OMPT presents a serious challenge to certifying institutions. Moreover, the lack of documentation of the development process for instruments that measure CR pose additional challenges. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sensibility of a newly developed instrument for assessing written responses to a test of CR in OMPT; a 'pilot' phase that examines instrument feasibility and acceptability. Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, Canadian OMPT examiners were recruited to first review and use the instrument. Participants completed a sensibility questionnaire followed by semi-structured interviews, the latter of which were used to elaborate on questionnaire responses regarding feasibility and acceptability. Eleven examiners completed the questionnaire and interviews. Questionnaire results met previously established sensibility criteria, while interview data revealed participants' (dis)comfort with exerting their own judgment and with the rating scale. Quantitative and qualitative data provided valuable insight regarding content validity and issues related to efficiency in assessing CR competence; all of which will ultimately inform further psychometric testing. While results suggest that the new instrument for assessing clinical reasoning in the Canadian certification context is sensible, future research should explore how rater judgment can be utilized effectively and the mental workload associated with appraising clinical reasoning.

Worker Productivity Outcome Measures: OMERACT Filter Evidence and Agenda for Future Research

The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT 11 Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) — an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group.