Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Current Definitions of Return to Work: A Measurement Approach

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction Return-to-work (RTW) status is an often used outcome in work and health research. In low back pain, work is regarded as a normal activity a worker should return to in order to fully recover. Comparing outcomes across studies and even jurisdictions using different definitions of RTW can be challenging for readers in general and when performing a systematic review in particular. In this study, the measurement properties of previously defined RTW outcomes were examined with data from two studies from two countries. Methods Data on RTW in low back pain (LBP) from the Canadian Early Claimant Cohort (ECC); a workers’ compensation based study, and the Dutch Amsterdam Sherbrooke Evaluation (ASE) study were analyzed. Correlations between outcomes, differences in predictive validity when using different outcomes and construct validity when comparing outcomes to a functional status outcome were analyzed. Results In the ECC all definitions were highly correlated and performed similarly in predictive validity. When compared to functional status, RTW definitions in the ECC study performed fair to good on all time points. In the ASE study all definitions were highly correlated and performed similarly in predictive validity. The RTW definitions, however, failed to compare or compared poorly with functional status. Only one definition compared fairly on one time point. Conclusions Differently defined outcomes are highly correlated, give similar results in prediction, but seem to differ in construct validity when compared to functional status depending on societal context or possibly birth cohort. Comparison of studies using different RTW definitions appears valid as long as RTW status is not considered as a measure of functional status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Franche RL, Carnide N, Hogg-Johnson S, Cote P, Breslin FC, Bultmann U, et al. Course, diagnosis, and treatment of depressive symptomatology in workers following a workplace injury: a prospective cohort study. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(8):534–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bultmann U, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Cote P, Lee H, Severin C, et al. Health status, work limitations, and return-to-work trajectories in injured workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(7):1167–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, van Poppel MNM. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: Stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehab. 2005;15(4):543–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Young AE, Roessler RT, Wasiak R, McPherson KM, van Poppel MNM, Anema JR. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehab. 2005;15(4):557–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wasiak R. Work retention and nonspecific low back pain. Point of view. Spine. 2006;31(16):1858–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wasiak R, Pransky G, Verma S, Webster B. Recurrence of low back pain: definition-sensitivity analysis using administrative data. Spine. 2003;28(19):2283–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wasiak R, Pransky GS, Webster BS. Methodological challenges in studying recurrence of low back pain. J Occup Rehab. 2003;13(1):21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baldwin ML, Butler RJ. Upper extremity disorders in the workplace: costs and outcomes beyond the first return to work. J Occup Rehab. 2006;16(3):303–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Briand C, Durand MJ, St Arnaud L, Corbiere M. Work and mental health: learning from return-to-work rehabilitation programs designed for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007;30(4–5):444–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dionne CE, Von Korff M, Koepsell TD, Deyo RA, Barlow WE, Checkoway H. A comparison of pain, functional limitations, and work status indices as outcome measures in back pain research. Spine (Phila Pa 1999);24(22):2339–45.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wasiak R, Young AE, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. Measuring return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:766–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. De Vet HCW, Heymans MW, Dunn KM, Pope DP, van der Beek AJ, Macfarlane GJ, et al. Episodes of low back pain—a proposal for uniform definitions to be used in research. Spine. 2002;27(21):2409–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Steenstra IA, Verbeek JH, Heymans MW, Bongers PM. Prognostic factors for duration of sick leave in patients sick listed with acute low back pain: a systematic review of the literature. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62(12):851–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goertz MN. Prognostic indicators for acute low-back pain. Spine. 1990;15(12):1307–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000;25(24):3100–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998;23(18):2003–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von KM, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008;33(1):90–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E. Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther. 1994;74(6):528–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kleinbaum D, Klein M. Survival analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2005. p. 331.

  21. Baldwin ML, Johnson WG, Butler RJ. The error of using returns-to-work to measure the outcomes of health care. Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):632–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fulton-Kehoe D, Gluck J, Wu R, Mootz R, Wickizer TM, Franklin GM. Measuring work disability: what can administrative data tell us about patient outcomes? J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(6):651–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leyshon RT, Shaw L. Using multiple stakeholders to define a successful return to work: a concept mapping approach. Work; 2010 (In press).

  24. Sinclair SJ, Hogg-Johnson SH, Mondloch MV, Shields SA. The effectiveness of an early active intervention program for workers with soft-tissue injuries. The Early Claimant Cohort Study. Spine. 1997;22(24):2919–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cole DC, Mondloch MV, Hogg-Johnson S. Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes–a prospective study. CMAJ. 2002;166(6):749–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hogg-Johnson S, Cole DC. Early prognostic factors for duration on temporary total benefits in the first year among workers with compensated occupational soft tissue injuries. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(4):244–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Anema JR, Steenstra IA, Bongers PM, de Vet HC, Knol DL, Loisel P, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: graded activity or workplace intervention or both?: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32(3):291–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Steenstra IA, Anema JR, Bongers PM, de Vet HCW, van Mechelen W. Cost effectiveness of a multi-stage return to work program for workers on sick leave due to low back pain, design of a population based controlled trial [ISRCTN60233560]. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2003;4:26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52(4):281–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Roland-Morris scale reliability. Phys Ther. 2002;82(5):512–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8(2):141–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ware JE, Snow MS, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pineo PC, Porter J, Mcroberts HA. 1971 census and socioeconomic classification of occupations. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology-Revue Canadienne de Sociologie et D Anthropologie. 1977;14(1):91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Steenstra IA, Anema JR, van Tulder MW, Bongers PM, De Vet HCW, van Mechelen W. Economic evaluation of a multi-stage return to work program for workers on sick-leave due to low back pain. J Occup Rehab. 2006;16(4):557–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Collett D. Modelling survival data in medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. SPSS 16.0, SPSS Inc., IL, USA.

  38. Verbeek JHAM, Anema JR, Everaert CPJ, Foppen G, Heymans MW, Hlobil H, et al. Richtlijn: Handelen van de bedrijfsarts bij werknemers met rugklachten. 11-9-2006. NVAB.

  39. Weevers HJ, van der Beek AJ, van den Brink-Muinen A, Bensing J, Boot CR, van Mechelen W. Communication about work between general practitioners and patients consulting for musculoskeletal disorders. Qual Prim Care. 2009;17(3):197–203.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Coole C, Watson PJ, Drummond A. Staying at work with back pain: patients’ experiences of work-related help received from GPs and other clinicians. A qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Weevers HJ, van der Beek AJ, Anema JR, van der Wal G, van Mechelen W. Work-related disease in general practice: a systematic review. Fam Pract. 2005;22(2):197–204.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y, Lynch J, Hallqvist J, Power C. Life course epidemiology. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2003;57(10):778–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Nachemson A. Work for all. For those with low back pain as well. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;179:77–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Steenstra IA, Davilmar A, Hogg-Johnson S, Verbeek JHAM. Changes in the incidence of occupational disability as a result of back and neck pain in the Netherlands and Ontario, Canada after legislative changes. 2010 Aug 20; Angers, France: Seventh International Scientific Conference on Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders PREMUS 2010; 2010 p. 38.

  45. Steenstra IA, Verbeek JH, Prinsze FJ, Knol DL. Changes in the incidence of occupational disability as a result of back and neck pain in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Work and Health, 481 University Avenue, Suite 800, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada

    I. A. Steenstra, H. Lee, J. W. Busse & S. J. Hogg-Johnson

  2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    I. A. Steenstra & S. J. Hogg-Johnson

  3. Work & Employment, TNO, 151 Polarisavenue, PO Box 718, 2130 AS, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

    E. M. M. de Vroome

  4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Rm. 2C12, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

    J. W. Busse

Authors
  1. I. A. Steenstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. M. M. de Vroome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. W. Busse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. J. Hogg-Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. A. Steenstra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steenstra, I.A., Lee, H., de Vroome, E.M.M. et al. Comparing Current Definitions of Return to Work: A Measurement Approach. J Occup Rehabil 22, 394–400 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9349-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9349-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation