Haitze de Vries

dose or content? Effectiveness of pain rehabilitation programs for patients with chronic low back pain: A systematic review

Summary The influence of dose on outcome of pain rehabilitation programs remains unclear. Dose has not been the primary aim and could not be isolated from content in studies. ABSTRACT We sought to systematically analyze the influence of dose of pain rehabilitation programs (PRPs) for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) on disability, work participation, and quality of life (QoL). Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, and Embase up to October 2012, using MeSH terms, other relevant terms and free‐text words. Randomized controlled trials in English, Dutch, and German, analyzing the effect of PRPs, were included. One of the analyzed interventions had to be a PRP. Outcomes should be reported regarding disability, work participation, or QoL. To analyze dose, the number of contact hours should be reported. Two reviewers independently selected titles, abstracts, and full‐text articles on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated for each intervention, and influence of dose variables was analyzed by a mixed model analysis. Eighteen studies were identified, reporting a wide variety of dose variables and contents of PRPs. Analyses showed that evaluation moment, number of disciplines, type of intervention, duration of intervention in weeks, percentage of women, and age influenced the outcomes of PRPs. The independent effect of dose variables could not be distinguished from content because these variables were strongly associated. Because dose variables were never studied separately or reported independently, we were not able to disentangle the relationship between dose, content, and effects of PRPs on disability, work participation, and QoL.

The capability set for work: development and validation of a new questionnaire

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire to measure work capabilities based on Amartya Sens capability approach and evaluate its validity. METHODS The development of the questionnaire was based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods: interviews, literature study, and an expert meeting. Additionally, in a survey, the validity was evaluated by means of hypotheses testing (using correlations and regression analyses). RESULTS The questionnaire consists of a set of seven capability aspects for work. For each aspect, it is determined whether it is part of a workers capability set, ie, when the aspect is considered valuable, is enabled in work, and is realized. The capability set was significantly correlated with work role functioning-flexibility demands (-0,187), work ability (-0.304), work performance (-0.282), worked hours (-0.073), sickness absence (yes/no) (0.098), and sickness absence days (0.105). The capability set and the overall capability item are significantly associated with all work outcomes (P<0.010). CONCLUSIONS The new capability set for work questionnaire appears to be a valid instrument to measure work capabilities. The questionnaire is unique because the items include the valued aspects of work and incorporate whether a worker is able to achieve what (s)he values in his/her work. The questionnaire can be used to evaluate the capability set of workers in organizations to identify aspects that need to be addressed in interventions.

Determinants of Sickness Absence and Return to Work Among Employees with Common Mental Disorders: A Scoping Review.

Purpose To present an overview of the existing evidence on prognostic factors of (recurrent) sickness absence (SA) and return to work (RTW) among workers with a common mental disorder (CMD). This scoping review provides information about determinants for SA and RTW, which could be used to develop better interventions aimed at the prevention of SA and promotion of RTW among workers with a CMD. Methods Relevant articles were identified in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and SINGLE up to October 2016. In order to be included, studies should provide insight into prognostic factors of SA or RTW of workers with a CMD. We classified all factors according to the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Results Our searches identified 2447 possible relevant articles, of which 71 were included for data extraction. There is consistent evidence in ≥3 studies that previous episodes of CMD, higher symptom severity, previous absenteeism, co-morbidity, high job demands, low job control, high job strain, female gender, lower educational level, smoking behavior, and low perceived general health are predictors of SA in people with CMDs. Earlier RTW is consistently predicted by lower symptom severity, having no previous absenteeism, younger age, and positive expectations concerning sick-leave duration or RTW. Conclusions The amount of research on determinants for SA and RTW in workers with CMD has increased dramatically in recent years, although most studies are from the Netherlands and Scandinavia. There are some research gaps identified in this scoping review that need further attention in primary and secondary studies. Based on the summary of the evidence, we provide guidance for policy, practice and research.

'I think positivity breeds positivity': a qualitative exploration of the role of family members in supporting those with chronic musculoskeletal pain to stay at work.

BackgroundIt is proposed that family members are important sources of support in helping those with chronic musculoskeletal pain to remain at work, but the phenomenon remains largely unexplored. The aim of this study was to examine the extent and nature of support provided by family members in this respect.MethodsQualitative data were collected from workers and their ‘significant others’ (spouses/partners/close family members) in two un-related studies focused on working with pain; one conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 10 dyads) and one in the Netherlands (n = 21 dyads). Thematic analysis techniques were applied to both sets of data independently, and findings were then assimilated to establish common themes.ResultsFindings were broadly similar in both studies. Workers acknowledged significant other support in helping them to manage their pain and remain at work, and their descriptions of the type of support provided and required were echoed by their significant others. Three common themes were identified - ‘connectivity’, ‘activity’ and ‘positivity’. Worker and significant other responses were largely congruent, but significant others provided more in-depth information on the nature of their support, their concerns and the impact on their relationship.ConclusionsThis research presents novel insights about the specific contribution made by significant others in helping their relatives with chronic musculoskeletal pain to stay at work. These findings add to the under-represented ‘social’ dimension of the biopsychosocial model currently applied to our understanding and treatment of pain, and point to harnessing support from significant others as a potentially effective management strategy.

F661 STAYING AT WORK WITH CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN: A NEW REFERENCE FOR PAIN REHABILITATION

Background and Aims: Chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain (CMP) results often in work disability and sick-leave, confronting employers, insurance companies, and society with considerable costs. However, a substantial amount of workers stay at work despite CMP. It is currently unknown on which factors people who stay at work despite CMP differ from those who do not. Attention to workers who stay at work despite CMP will enlarge our understanding of work participation in people with CMP. The main question of this study was: what are the characteristics of workers who manage to stay at work despite CMP, and what can be learned from this successful group? Methods: Cross-sectional design. Medical, physical, psychological and social variables of workers who stay at work with CMP were described (n = 120), and compared with sick-listed workers with CMP who sought multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation care (n = 120). Results: Relevant differences were observed on pain disability, physical and mental health, lifting low, static overhead work, forward bending, pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, work satisfaction and presenteeism. Non-relevant differences were observed on pain intensity, activity level, dynamic bending, pain acceptance, fear avoidance, psycho-neuroticism, pain coping, responses of significant others, need for recovery, and work demands. Conclusions: Relevant and non-relevant differences exist between workers with CMP who stay at work and sick-listed workers who search pain rehabilitation. The results of this study can be used to develop interventions to promote staying at work. The knowledge gathered in this study provides a new reference for clinicians working in rehabilitation, occupational, and insurance medicine.