Dataset Information

Content Validation of a Practice-Based Work Capacity Assessment Instrument Using ICF Core Sets.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

A shift from providing long-term disability benefits to promoting work reintegration of people with remaining work capacity in many countries requires new instruments for work capacity assessments. Recently, a practice-based instrument addressing biopsychosocial aspects of functioning, the Social Medical Work Capacity instrument (SMWC), was developed. Our aim was to examine the content validity of the SMWC using ICF core sets.

Methods

First, we conducted a systematic search to identify relevant ICF core sets for the working age population. Second the content of these core sets were mapped to assess the relevance and comprehensiveness of the SMWC. Next, we compared the content of the SMWC with the ICF-core sets.

Results

Two work-related core sets and 31 disease-specific core sets were identified. The SMWC and the two work-related core sets overlap on 47 categories. Compared to the work-related core sets, the Body Functions and Activities and Participation are well represented in the new instrument, while the component Environmental factors is under-represented. Compared to the disease-specific core sets, items related to the social and domestic environmental factors are under-represented, while the SMWC included work-related factors complementary to the ICF.

Conclusion

The SMWC content seems relevant, but could be more comprehensive for the purpose of individual work capacity assessments. To improve assessing relevant biopsychosocial aspects, it is recommended to extend the instrument by adding personal and environmental (work- and social-related) factors as well as a more tailored use of the SMWC for assessing work capacity of persons with specific diseases or underlying illness.

SUBMITTER: Sengers JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8172508 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral occupational health disciplines are involved in return to work guidance, implying that good interdisciplinary collaboration is important. A shared conceptual framework and a common language for the assessment of work capacity and guidance in return to work is expected to be at the benefit of appropriate and sustainable employability of sick employees. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can be considered a shared conceptual framework and is also promising in terms of a common language. The purpose of the current study is to reach multidisciplinary consensus among occupational health professionals on the content of an ICF-based instrument for the assessment of work capacity and guidance in return to work.MethodsTo obtain multidisciplinary consensus we conducted a modified Delphi study among twelve occupational health experts, including four occupational physicians, four insurance physicians and four labour experts. The study included two e-mail rounds and two virtual meetings. In the consecutive rounds the experts assessed ICF items as well as a list of non-ICF-based work-related environmental factors on their relevance for the assessment of the work capacity and guidance in return to work together with their interpretability.ResultsThe four consecutive Delphi rounds resulted in 20 items that are minimally needed for the assessment of the work capacity and return to work possibilities of employees on sick leave. The final list included six items on personal functioning, seven items on social functioning and seven items on physical functioning.ConclusionsThis set of items forms the core of an ICF-based instrument, which is expected to facilitate interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary communication because of the use of a shared conceptual framework. As such, it should be of help in the guidance in return to work of employees on sick leave and contribute to appropriate and sustainable employability.

Project description:ObjectiveInsurers frequently commission medical experts to estimate the degree of the remaining work capacity (RWC) in claimants for disability benefits. The social functioning scale Mini-ICF-APP allows for a rating of activity and participation limitations in thirteen capacity domains, considered as particularly relevant for work ability. The current study sought to evaluate the role of the Mini-ICF-APP ratings in psychiatric work disability evaluations, by examining how the capacity limitation ratings varied with the claimants' primary psychiatric diagnoses and how the ratings were related to RWC estimates.MethodsMedical experts estimated the RWC of 946 claimants with mental disorders and rated their activity and participation limitations using the Mini-ICF-APP, with higher ratings reflecting more severe limitations. The ratings were compared between claimants with different psychiatric diagnoses by analyses of variance. The mean Mini-ICF-APP rating across all capacity domains as well as all capacity-specific ratings were entered in simple or multiple regression models to predict the RWC in an alternative job.ResultsThe Mini-ICF-APP capacity limitation ratings in all domains but mobility were higher for claimants with personality and behavior disorders as compared to those with mood disorders or with neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders. The largest differences were observed in social capacities (e.g. group integration: F 2, 847 = 78.300, P < 0.001). In claimants with depression, all ratings increased with the severity of the diagnosis (all Fs 2, 203 > 16.393, all Ps < 0.001). In the overall sample, the mean Mini-ICF-APP rating showed a strong negative correlation with the estimated RWC (r = -.720, P < 0.001). Adding the capacity-specific ratings to the prediction model improved this prediction only marginally.DiscussionThe Mini-ICF-APP allows for documenting claimants' activity and participation limitations, which is likely to increase the transparency of medical experts' RWC estimates and enables them to check the plausibility of such estimates. However, our study showed that despite the strong association between RWC and Mini-ICF-APP ratings, half of the RWC variance was unrelated to the capacity limitations documented in the Mini-ICF-APP.

Project description:ObjectivesAccording to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), functioning reflects the interplay between an individual's body structures and functions, activities, participation, environmental, and personal factors. To be useful in clinical practice, these concepts need to be operationalized into a practical and integral instrument. The Brief ICF Core Set for Hearing Loss (CSHL) provides a minimum standard for the assessment of functioning in adults with hearing loss. The objective of the present study was to operationalize the Brief CSHL into a digital intake tool that could be used in the otology-audiology practice for adults with ear and hearing problems as part of their intake assessment.DesignA three-step approach was followed: (1) Selecting and formulating questionnaire items and response formats, using the 27 categories of the Brief CSHL as a basis. Additional categories were selected based on relevant literature and clinical expertise. Items were selected from existing, commonly used disease-specific questionnaires, generic questionnaires, or the WHO's official descriptions of ICF categories. The response format was based on the existing item's response categories or on the ICF qualifiers. (2) Carrying out an expert survey and a pilot study (using the three-step test interview. Relevant stakeholders and patients were asked to comment on the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the items. Results were discussed in the project group, and items were modified based on consensus. (3) Integration of the intake tool into a computer-based system for use in clinical routine.ResultsThe Brief CSHL was operationalized into 62 items, clustered into six domains: (1) general information, including reason for visit, sociodemographic, and medical background; (2) general body functions; (3) ear and hearing structures and functions; (4) activities and participation (A&P); (5) environmental factors (EF); and (6) personal factors (mastery and coping). Based on stakeholders' responses, the instructions of the items on A&P and EF were adapted. The three-step test interview showed that the tool had sufficient content validity but that some items on EF were redundant. Overall, the stakeholders and patients indicated that the intake tool was relevant and had a logical and clear structure. The tool was integrated in an online portal.ConclusionsIn the current study, an ICF-based e-intake tool was developed that aims to screen self-reported functioning problems in adults with an ear/hearing problem. The relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the originally proposed item list was supported, although the stakeholder and patient feedback resulted into some changes of the tool on item-level. Ultimately, the functioning information obtained with the tool could be used to promote patient-centered ear and hearing care taking a biopsychosocial perspective into account.

Project description:BackgroundEmployees insured in pension insurance, who are incapable of working due to ill health, are entitled to a disability pension. To assess whether an individual meets the medical requirements to be considered as disabled, a work capacity evaluation is conducted. However, there are no official guidelines on how to perform an external quality assurance for this evaluation process. Furthermore, the quality of medical reports in the field of insurance medicine can vary substantially, and systematic evaluations are scarce. Reliability studies using peer review have repeatedly shown insufficient ability to distinguish between high, moderate and low quality. Considering literature recommendations, we developed an instrument to examine the quality of medical experts' reports.MethodsThe peer review manual developed contains six quality domains (formal structure, clarity, transparency, completeness, medical-scientific principles, and efficiency) comprising 22 items. In addition, a superordinate criterion (survey confirmability) rank the overall quality and usefulness of a report. This criterion evaluates problems of inner logic and reasoning. Development of the manual was assisted by experienced physicians in a pre-test. We examined the observable variance in peer judgements and reliability as the most important outcome criteria. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, 20 anonymous experts' reports detailing the work capacity evaluation were reviewed by 19 trained raters (peers). Percentage agreement and Kendall's W, a reliability measure of concordance between two or more peers, were calculated. A total of 325 reviews were conducted.ResultsAgreement of peer judgements with respect to the superordinate criterion ranged from 29.2 to 87.5%. Kendall's W for the quality domain items varied greatly, ranging from 0.09 to 0.88. With respect to the superordinate criterion, Kendall's W was 0.39, which indicates fair agreement. The results of the percentage agreement revealed systemic peer preferences for certain deficit scale categories.ConclusionThe superordinate criterion was not sufficiently reliable. However, in comparison to other reliability studies, this criterion showed an equivalent reliability value. This report aims to encourage further efforts to improve evaluation instruments. To reduce disagreement between peer judgments, we propose the revision of the peer review instrument and the development and implementation of a standardized rater training to improve reliability.