The Predictive Validity of the Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy Scale for Return-to-Work Outcomes in Claimants with Musculoskeletal Disorders

Purpose To examine the predictive validity of the Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy (RTWSE) Scale in terms of the scale's baseline absolute values and of changes in self-efficacy scores, with the outcome of return-to-work (RTW) status in a sample of injured workers with upper extremity and back musculoskeletal disorders. Methods RTWSE was measured with a 10-item scale assessing Overall RTWSE and three self-efficacy subdomains: (1) ability to cope with pain, (2) ability to obtain help from supervisor and (3) ability to obtain help from co-workers. Outcome measures included RTW status (yes/no) measured at 6- and 12-month follow-up. RTWSE improvement was defined as an increase in self-efficacy scores between baseline and 6-month follow-up time points. Logistic regression analyses were performed with RTW status as the dependent variable and adjusted for age, gender, educational level, personal income, pain site, pain severity, functional status, and depressive symptoms, and for baseline RTWSE scores in the improvement score analyses. Results A total of 632 claimants completed the baseline telephone interview 1 month post-injury; 446 subjects completed the 6-month interview (71 %) and 383 subjects completed the 12-month interview (61 %). The baseline Pain RTWSE scores were found to be useful to predict RTW status 6 months post-injury, with a trend for baseline Overall RTWSE. Improvements over time in Overall RTWSE and in Co-worker RTWSE were found to be useful to predict 12-month RTW status, with trends for improvements in Supervisor RTWSE and Pain RTWSE. Conclusion The study found evidence supporting the predictive validity of the RTWSE scale within 12 months after injury. The RTWSE scale may be a potentially valuable scale in research and in managing work disabled claimants with musculoskeletal disorders

Systematic Review of Prognostic Factors for Return to Work in Workers with Sub Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain

Morgan, John (2012)Teaching Secondary Geography as if the Planet MattersLondres: Routledge, 165 p.ISBN 978-0-415-56387-1Morgan, John (2012)Teaching Secondary Geography as if the Planet MattersLondres: Routledge, 165 p.ISBN 978-0-415-56387-1Morgan, John (2012)Teaching Secondary Geography as if the Planet MattersLondres: Routledge, 165 p.ISBN 978-0-415-56387-1Morgan, John (2012)Teaching Secondary Geography as if the Planet MattersLondres: Routledge, 165 p.ISBN 978-0-415-56387-

Predicting Time on Prolonged Benefits for Injured Workers with Acute Back Pain

Introduction Some workers with work-related compensated back pain (BP) experience a troubling course of disability. Factors associated with delayed recovery among workers with work-related compensated BP were explored. Methods This is a cohort study of workers with compensated BP in 2005 in Ontario, Canada. Follow up was 2æyears. Data was collected from employers, employees and health-care providers by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). Exclusion criteria were: (1) no-lost-time claims, (2) \u3e30ædays between injury and claim filing, (3) 65æyears. Using proportional hazard models, we examined the prognostic value of information collected in the first 4æweeks after injury. Outcome measures were time on benefits during the first episode and time until recurrence after the first episode. Results Of 6,657 workers, 1,442 were still on full benefits after 4æweeks. Our final model containing age, physical demands, opioid prescription, union membership, availability of a return-to-work program, employer doubt about work-relatedness of injury, worker?s recovery expectations, participation in a rehabilitation program and communication of functional ability was able to identify prolonged claims to a fair degree [area under the curve (AUC)æ=æ.79, 95æ% confidence interval (CI) .74?.84]. A model containing age, sex, physical demands, opioid prescription and communication of functional ability was less successful at predicting time until recurrence (AUCæ=æ.61, 95æ% CI .57, .65). Conclusions Factors contained in information currently collected by the WSIB during the first 4æweeks on benefits can predict prolonged claims, but not recurrent claims. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10926-014-9534-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Understanding patient profiles and characteristics of current chiropractic practice: a cross-sectional Ontario Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (O-COAST)

Objectives There is no current detailed profile of people seeking chiropractic care in Canada. We describe the profiles of chiropractors’ practice and the reasons, nature of the care provided to their patients and extent of interprofessional collaborations in Ontario, Canada. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting Primary care setting in Ontario, Canada. Participants We randomly recruited chiropractors from a list of registered chiropractors (n=3978) in active practice in 2015. Of the 135 randomly selected chiropractors, 120 were eligible, 43 participated and 42 completed the study.Outcome measures Each chiropractor recorded information for up to 100 consecutive patient encounters, documenting patient health profiles, reasons for encounter, diagnoses and care provided. Descriptive statistics summarised chiropractor, patient and encounter characteristics, with analyses accounting for clustering and design effects. Results Chiropractors provided data on 3523 chiropractor-patient encounters. More than 65% of participating chiropractors were male, mean age 44 years and had practised on average 15 years. The typical patient was female (59% of encounters), between 45 and 64 years (43%) and retired (21%) or employed in business and administration (13%). Most (39.4%) referrals were from other patients, with 6.8% from physicians. Approximately 68% of patients paid out of pocket or claimed extended health insurance for care. Most common diagnoses were back (49%, 95% CI 44 to 56) and neck (15%, 95% CI 13 to 18) problems, with few encounters related to maintenance/preventive care (0.86%, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.9) and non-musculoskeletal problems (1.3%, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.3). The most common treatments included spinal manipulation (72%), soft tissue therapy (70%) and mobilisation (35%). Conclusions This is the most comprehensive profile to date of chiropractic practice in Canada. People who present to Ontario chiropractors are mostly adults with a musculoskeletal condition. Our results can be used by stakeholders to make informed decisions about workforce development, education and healthcare policy related to chiropractic care

Is a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline more effective than general practitioner education or preferred-provider rehabilitation in promoting recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders?:A pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II. Design Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Setting Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada. Participants 340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: Government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation. Primary and secondary outcome measures Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury. Results The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (X 2 =3.96; 2 df: P=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported. Conclusions Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life

Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy:Development and Validation of a Scale in Claimants with Musculoskeletal Disorders

Introduction We report on the development and validation of a 10-item scale assessing self-efficacy within the return-to-work context, the Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy (RTWSE) scale. Methods Lost-time claimants completed a telephone survey 1 month (n = 632) and 6 months (n = 446) after a work-related musculoskeletal injury. Exploratory (Varimax and Promax rotation) and confirmatory factor analyses of self-efficacy items were conducted with two separate subsamples at both time points. Construct validity was examined by comparing scale measurements and theoretically derived constructs, and the phase specificity of RTWSE was studied by examining changes in strength of relationships between the RTWSE Subscales and the other constructs at both time measures. Results Factor analyses supported three underlying factors: (1) Obtaining help from supervisor, (2) Coping with pain (3) Obtaining help from co-workers. Internal consistency (alpha) for the three subscales ranged from 0.66 to 0.93. The total variance explained was 68% at 1-month follow-up and 76% at 6-month follow-up. Confirmatory factor analyses had satisfactory fit indices to confirm the initial model. With regard to construct validity: relationships of RTWSE with depressive symptoms, fear-avoidance, pain, and general health, were generally in the hypothesized direction. However, the hypothesis that less advanced stages of change on the Readiness for RTW scale would be associated with lower RTWSE could not be completely confirmed: on all RTWSE subscales, RTWSE decreased significantly for a subset of participants who started working again. Moreover, only Pain RTWSE was significantly associated with RTW status and duration of work disability. With regard to the phase specificity, the strength of association between RTWSE and other constructs was stronger at 6 months post-injury compared to 1 month post-injury. Conclusions A final 10-item version of the RTWSE has adequate internal consistency and validity to assess the confidence of injured workers to obtain help from supervisor and co-workers and to cope with pain. With regard to phase specificity, stronger associations between RTWSE and other constructs at 6-month follow-up suggest that the association between these psychological constructs consolidates over time after the disruptive event of the injury

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system