Welcome!
To use the personalized features of this site, please log in or register.
If you have forgotten your username or password, we can help.
|
 |
Complementary value of functional capacity evaluation for physicians in assessing the physical work ability of workers with musculoskeletal disorders
| |
  |
Original Article
Complementary value of functional capacity evaluation for physicians in assessing the physical work ability of workers with
musculoskeletal disorders
Haije Wind1  , Vincent Gouttebarge1, P. Paul F. M. Kuijer1, Judith K. Sluiter1 and Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen1
| (1) |
Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
Received: 7 May 2007 Accepted: 22 September 2008 Published online: 9 October 2008
Abstract
Objective To study the complementary value of information from functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for insurance physicians (IPs) who
assess the physical work ability of claimants with long-term musculoskeletal disorders (MSD).
Method A post-test only design was used in the context of disability claims. Twenty-eight IPs participated in the study. Claimants
with MSD formed the patient population. For each IP, the first claimant who agreed to participate was included in the study,
and underwent FCE in addition to the regular disability claim assessment. Firstly, the IP performed the statutory disability
claim assessment. Secondly, the FCE assessment took place. Finally, a self-formulated questionnaire was presented to the IPs
after they viewed the FCE report. IPs were asked whether they perceived FCE information to be of complementary value to their
judgment of the claimant’s physical work ability investigated. We considered FCE information to be of complementary value
if more than 66% of the IPs indicated as such. IPs were also asked whether FCE information led them to change their initial
judgment about the claimant’s physical work ability, and whether they felt this information made them more confident about
their ultimate judgement. Finally, they were asked whether they planned to include FCE information in future disability claims
and for what type of claimants. Differences between IPs who did or did not experience complementary value were explored.
Results Of the 28, 19 (nearly 68%) IPs considered FCE information to be of complementary value for their assessment of claimants with
MSD. Half of the IPs stated that FCE information reinforced their judgment. All but four IPs changed their assessment after
reading the FCE report. Sixteen IPs intended to involve FCE information in future disability claim assessments. There were
no observed differences between the IPs who did or did not consider the FCE information to be of complementary value.
Conclusion FCE information was found to have complementary value at present and in the future according to most IPs in the assessment
of the physical work ability of claimants with MSD. Half of the IPs felt that this information reinforces their judgment in
this context.
Keywords Functional capacity evaluation - Work ability - Insurance physician - Complementary value - Musculoskeletal disorders
References
de Bont A, van den Brink JC, Berendsen L, Boonk M (2002) Limited control of information for work disability evaluation [De
beperkte controle van de informatie voor de arbeidsongeschiktheidsbeoordeling: in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 146:27–30
|
| |
Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Stewart RE, Goeken LN, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH (2005) Comparing self-report, clinical examination
and functional testing in the assessment of work-related limitations in patients with chronic low back pain. Disabil Rehabil
27:999–1005
|
| |
Fairbank JCT, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273
|
| |
Frings-Dresen MHW, Sluiter JK (2003) Development of a Job-specific FCE protocol: the work demands of hospital nurses as an
example. J Occup Rehabil 13:233–248
|
| |
Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2005) Intra- and interrater reliability of the Ergo-Kit
Functional Capacity Evaluation method in adults without musculoskeletal complaints. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:2354–2360
|
| |
Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2006) Reliability and agreement of 5 Ergo-Kit Functional
Capacity Evaluation in lifting tests in subjects with low back pain. Arch Phys Med 87:1365–1370
|
| |
Gross DP, Battié MC (2004) The prognostic value of Functional Capacity Evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain:
part 2; sustained recovery. Spine 29:920–924
|
| |
Gross DP, Battié MC (2005) Functional Capacity Evaluation performance does not predict sustained return to work in claimants
with chronic back pain. J Occup Rehab 15:285–294
|
| |
Gross DP, Battié MC (2006) Does Functional Capacity Evaluation predict recovery in workers’ compensation claimants with upper
extremity disorders? Occup Environ Med 3:404–410
|
| |
Gross DP, Battié MC, Cassidy JD (2004) The prognostic value of Functional Capacity Evaluation in patients with chronic low
back pain: part 1; timely return to work. Spine 29:914–919
|
| |
Gross DP, Battié MC, Asante A (2006) Development and validation of a short-form Functional Capacity Evaluation for use in
claimants with low back disorders. J Occup Rehab 16:53–62
|
| |
Harten JA (1998) Functional capacity evaluation. Occup Med 13:209–212
|
| |
| Hudson-Cook N, Tomes-Nicholson K, Breen A (1989) A revised Oswestry disability questionnaire. In: Roland M, Jenner JR (eds)
Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 187–204
|
| |
Innes E (2006) Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluations: an update. Int J Disab Manag Res 1:135–148
|
| |
Innes E, Straker L (1999a) Reliability of work-related assessments. Work 13:107–124
|
| |
Innes E, Straker L (1999b) Validity of work-related assessments. Work 13:125–152
|
| |
| Kerstholt JH, de Boer WEL, Jansen EJM, Bollen D, Rasker PC, Cremer R (2002) Psychological aspects of disability claim assessment
(Psychologische aspecten van de claimbeoordeling: in Dutch). TNO report, TM-02-C051, Hoofddorp, p 33
|
| |
King PM, Tuckwell N, Barrett TE (1998) A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 78(8):852–866
|
| |
Le Pen C, Reygrobellet C, Gérentes I (2005) Financial cost of osteoarthritis in France. The COART France study. Joint Bone
Spine 72:567–570
|
| |
Lubeck DP (2003) The costs of musculoskeletal disease: health needs assessment and health economics. Best Pract Res Clin Rheum
17:529–539
|
| |
Lyth JR (2001) Disability management and functional capacity evaluation: a dynamic resource. Work 16:13–22
|
| |
| Statistics Netherlands (2004) Labour, income and social security (in Dutch). http://www.cbs.nl/theme
|
| |
Picavet S, Schouten JSAG (2003) Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC3-study. Pain 102:167–178
|
| |
Rainville J, Pransky G, Indahl A, Mayer EK (2005) The physician as disability advisor for patients with musculoskeletal complaints.
Spine 30:2579–2584
|
| |
| Razenberg PPA (1992) Formation of judgment: scientific framework (Verzekeringsgeneeskundige oordeelsvorming: inzicht in de
praktijk: in Dutch). PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
|
| |
Soer R, Gerrits EHJ, Reneman MF (2006) Test-retest reliability of a WRULD functional capacity evaluation in healthy adults.
Work 26:273–280
|
| |
Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Andresen EM, Hadler NM (2006) Disability determination: validity with occupational low back pain. J
Pain 7(12):951–957
|
| |
Van de Mheen H, Stronks K, Schrijvers CTM, Mackenbach JP (1999) The influence of adult ill health on occupational class mobility
and mobility out of and into employment in The Netherlands. Soc Sci Med 49:509–518
|
| |
Vasudevan SV (1996) Role of functional capacity assessment in disability evaluation. J Back Musculoskel Rehab 6:237–248
|
| |
Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, Frings-Dresen MHW (2005) Assessment of functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system
in the context of work, daily living, and sport: a systematic review. J Occup Rehab 15:253–272
|
| |
Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2006) The utility of functional capacity evaluation: the
opinion of physicians and other experts in the field of return to work and disability claims. Int Arch Occup Environ Health
79:528–534
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|