Measurement Properties of the Work Ability Score in Sick-Listed Workers with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

Purpose Chronic musculoskeletal pain can have a major impact on ability to work. The work ability score is a commonly used single-item question to assess work ability but has not been fully validated yet. The aim of the present study was to evaluate test-retest reliability, agreement, construct validity, and responsiveness of the work ability score among sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods Data of sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain was routinely collected at seven rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands. Assessments included a set of questionnaires, administered at admission and discharge from a fifteen-week vocational rehabilitation program. Test-retest reliability was determined with the intraclass correlation coefficient. For agreement, the standard error of measurement and smallest detectable changes were calculated. Construct validity was assessed by testing hypotheses regarding Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Area under the curve obtained from the receiver operating characteristic curve and minimal clinically important change were determined for the total sample and work ability score baseline tertile groups to assess responsiveness. Results In total, 34 workers were analyzed for reliability and agreement, 1291 workers for construct validity, and 590 responded to the responsiveness questionnaire. Reliability reached an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89; 95% CI 0.77-0.94, a standard error of measurement of 0.69 points, and the smallest detectable change of 1.92 points. For construct validity, six of the seven predefined hypotheses were not refuted. The area under the curve was 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.81) allowing for discrimination between stable and improved workers, with a minimal clinically important change of 2.0 points for the total sample. Conclusion The work ability score showed good measurement properties among sick-listed workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain

General and Specific Self-efficacy Reports of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Are They Related to Performances in a Functional Capacity Evaluation?

Introduction The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship of general and specific self-efficacy (SE) beliefs with functional capacity evaluation (FCE) performances in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP), while controlling for influence of gender, age, and self-reported pain intensity, self-esteem, disability, psychosocial distress and health status. Methods Included were 92 patients with CLBP referred to an outpatient university based multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program in The Netherlands. All patients underwent an FCE. General SE was measured with the ALCOS questionnaire prior to the FCE, specific SE was measured with a self-constructed standardized question during the FCE. Paired samples t-tests were used to tests differences between predicted and actual performances. Pearson and Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to express the strength of the relationships between SE and performances. Multivariate analyses were used to test the influence of control variables on the relationships between SE (general or specific) and performances. Results Performances were consistently higher than patients’ self-predictions. Differences between predictions and performances were significant in male lifting low, male carrying, and female carrying. With exception of the association between specific SE and lifting in males (r = 0.55, P < 0.05), all other correlations between general and specific SE and FCE performances were non-significant. Multivariable regression analyses showed that the relative contribution of SE measures over gender was little or none. Conclusions The contribution of specific SE to the prediction of FCE performances is moderate in one instance, and insignificant in most instances (both specific and general SE). Because of the consistency of the differences between prediction (specific SE) and performances, and depending on the level of accuracy needed, future research may deliberate the use of predicted material handling capacities at group level and correct for a systematic underprediction

Measurement Properties of the Full and Brief Version of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire in Persons with Physical Disabilities

Purpose The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) is a self-report vocational rehabilitation assessment. A comprehensive (WORQ-FULL) and a brief version (WORQ-BRIEF) are available. The purpose of this study was to investigate measurement properties of both versions in persons with physical disabilities. Methods Cross sectional and test-retest design. Adults with physical disabilities in vocational rehabilitation were included. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation; ICC), agreement between sessions (Bland-Altman Plots), criterion validity (ICC and agreement with Bland-Altman Plots between WORQ-FULL and WORQ-BRIEF) and convergent validity with the Work Ability Index -Single item (WAS) and the EuroQOL 5D-5L were analyzed. Results Out of the 91 individuals who agreed to participate, 74 (81%) returned questionnaire T1 and 49 (54%) participants returned questionnaire T2 within the maximum time interval (= 27 days). At T2, 28 (57%) participants reported no medical changes compared to T1. Median age was 49 (IQR 40-60), 57% were male, 47% had experienced a stroke and 27% a spinal cord injury (n = 49). Internal consistency was good: 0.95/0.95/0.94 for the WORQ-FULL and 0.88/0.89/0.85 for the WORQ-BRIEF (n = 74/n = 48/n = 28, respectively). Test-retest reliabilitywas good: ICC = 0.86/0.85 for the WORQ-FULL and ICC = 0.87/0.86 for the WORQ-BRIEF (n = 49/ n = 28). Bland Altman plots suggested a higher score at T1. As for criterion validity of the WORQ-FULL versus the WORQ-BRIEF, ICC was good (ICC = 0.84; n = 74), however Bland Altman plots indicated potential bias. Correlations with the WAS/EuroQOL 5D-5L were variable: r = -0.24/r = -0.57 (WORQ-FULL) and r = -0.28/-0.65 (WORQ-BRIEF). Conclusions The WORQ showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Agreement demonstrated large score differences are needed to indicate change beyond random chance at individual level, whereas small changes are sufficient at group level. Criterion validity of the WORQ-FULL versus the WORQ-BRIEF was supported, however, agreement demonstrated moderate to large score differences are needed to indicate change beyond random chance at individual level, whereas small changes are sufficient at group level. This indicates the WORQ-FULL and WORQ-BRIEF are better not used interchangeably. Correlation analyses provided better insight in the validity of the WORQ. Convergent validity was supported for the WORQ-BRIEF with the EuroQoL 5D-5L (r = -0.65)

State anxiety improves prediction of pain and pain-related disability after 12 weeks in patients with acute low back pain:a cohort study

Question: Do measures of state anxiety and trait anxiety in people with acute low back pain (ALBP) improve prediction of chronic low back pain (CLBP), defined as pain or pain-related disability at 12 weeks? Design: Observational multi-centre prospective cohort study in primary physiotherapy care with measurements at baseline and at 12 weeks of state and trait anxiety, as well as other established prognostic factors for CLBP. Participants: People with nonspecific ALBP, aged 18 to 60 years, who had been pain free for ≥ 3 months before their current ALBP, and who were being treated according the Dutch clinical guidelines. Outcome measures and analysis: CLBP was defined as a pain score ≥ 3/10 on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (primary outcome), and as a pain-related disability score ≥ 19/70 on the Pain Disability Inventory. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses estimated how the risk of CLBP differed with state and trait anxiety and other established prognostic factors. Results: Most (204 of 225) participants completed both assessments. State anxiety was an independent predictor of CLBP, whether defined as pain or pain-related disability at 12 weeks, in contrast to trait anxiety. State anxiety improved the predictive performance of the model, with area under the curve (AUC) increasing from 0.64 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71) to 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82) and Nagelkerke's R2 increasing from 0.08 to 0.24 for the primary outcome measure, pain. For the secondary outcome measure, pain-related disability: AUC 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.72) improved to 0.73 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.82) and Nagelkerke's R2 increased from 0.05 to 0.16. Adding trait anxiety to the prognostic model for pain improved the AUC from 0.64 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71) to 0.70 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.77) and Nagelkerke's R2 from 0.08 to 0.15. Conclusion: State anxiety in patients with ALBP improved prediction of CLBP, defined as pain and pain-related disability at 12 weeks

Side-effects and adverse events of a shoulder- and back-support exoskeleton in workers:A systematic review

Introduction: While the biomechanical effects of exoskeletons are well studied, research about potential side-effects and adverse events are limited. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the side-effects and adverse events on shoulder- and back-support exoskeletons during work tasks. Methods: Four in-field studies and 32 laboratory studies were included in this review, reporting on n = 18 shoulder exoskeletons, n = 9 back exoskeletons, n = 1 full body with a supernumerary arm, and n = 1 combination of shoulder and back exoskeleton. Results: The most frequent side-effect reported is discomfort (n = 30), followed by a limited usability of the exoskeleton (n = 16). Other identified side-effects and adverse events were changes in muscle activity, mobility, task performance, balance and posture, neurovascular supply, gait parameters and precision. An incorrect fit of the exoskeleton and the decreased degrees of freedom are most often reported as causes of these side-effects. Two studies did not find any side-effects. This review also showed that there are differences in the occurrence of side-effects in gender, age, and physical fitness. Most studies (89%) were conducted in a laboratory setting. Most studies (97%) measured short-term effects only. Psychological and social side-effects or adverse events were not reported. Side-effects and adverse events for active exoskeletons were understudied (n = 4). Conclusion: It was concluded that the evidence for side-effects and adverse events is limited. If available, it mainly consists of reports of mild discomfort and limited usability. Generalisation is limited because studies were conducted in lab settings and measured short term only, and most participants were young male workers.</p

Variation in occupational exposure associated with musculoskeletal complaints:a cross-sectional study among professional bassists

Variation in occupational exposure is assumed to have a protective effect against the development of musculoskeletal complaints (MSC), but this common assumption is not strongly supported by the literature. Among musicians, who have a high prevalence of MSC, many play more than one type of instrument (multi-instrumentalism) for many hours a day. Since multi-instrumentalism implies greater variation in ergonomic load of specific musculoskeletal areas than mono-instrumentalism, musicians are a suitable study population to test whether the above assumption is true. To investigate in a sample of professional bass players whether multi-instrumentalists are less likely to have MSC than mono-instrumentalists. Participants were 141 professional and professional student double bassists and bass guitarists. Demographic, MSC and exposure characteristics were collected online with self-constructed and existing questionnaires. Logistic regression analysis was used to test the association between multi- versus mono-instrumentalism and MSC, adjusted for confounders. The prevalence of having MSC in the neck, back, right shoulder area and both wrist areas did not differ significantly between the two groups. Further analysis revealed that the likelihood of having MSC in the left shoulder area was higher in multi-instrumentalists compared to mono-instrumentalists (Odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.119-0.753, p = 0.010). In this sample of professional bass players, no protective effect of multi-instrumentalism against MSC was found. Multi-instrumentalism was associated with a higher prevalence of MSC in the left shoulder. This result challenges theoretical and clinical assumptions in occupational and pain medicine

Monitoring core temperature of firefighters to validate a wearable non-invasive core thermometer in different types of protective clothing:Concurrent in-vivo validation

This study aims (1) to test the validity of a new non-invasive core thermometer, Cosinuss°, in rest and (2) during firefighting simulation tasks, against invasive temperature pill and inner-ear temperature and (3) to compare the change in core temperature of firefighters when working in two types of protective clothing (traditional turnout gear versus new concept). 11 active firefighters performed twice a selection of tasks during their periodic preventive medical examination and a fire-extinguishing task. Without correction no correlation between the Cosinuss° and thermometer pill (ICC≤0.09, p ≥ 0.154, LoA≥1.37) and a moderate correlation between Cosinuss° and inner-ear infrared (ICC = 0.40, p = 0.044, LoA±1.20) was observed. With individual correction both correlations were excellent (ICC≥0.84, p = 0.000, LoA≤0.30). However, during and after working all correlations were poor and non-significant (ICC≤0.38, p ≥ 0.091, LoA≥1.71). During firefighting tasks, the Cosinuss° is invalid for measuring the core temperature. No differences in heat development in the two types of protective clothing was proven

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

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? 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. 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. 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