Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

Margarita Ravinskaya; Jos H. Verbeek; Miranda W. Langendam; Ira Madan; Suzanne M.M. Verstappen; Regina Kunz; Carel T.J. Hulshof; Jan L. Hoving

doi:10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0

Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

Margarita Ravinskaya^*, Jos H. Verbeek, Miranda W. Langendam, Ira Madan, Suzanne M.M. Verstappen, Regina Kunz, Carel T.J. Hulshof, Jan L. Hoving

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors’ reasons for choosing specific WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut off points and varying definitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes for the evaluation of interventions.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	620-628
Number of pages	9
Journal	JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION
Volume	32
Issue number	4
Early online date	26 Mar 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 26 Mar 2022

Keywords

Outcome studies
Return-to-work
Survey
Vocational rehabilitation
Worker participation

Access to Document

10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0

Cite this

Ravinskaya, M., Verbeek, J. H., Langendam, M. W., Madan, I., Verstappen, S. M. M., Kunz, R., Hulshof, C. T. J., & Hoving, J. L. (2022). Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION, 32(4), 620-628. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0

@article{23788aec22f24f8687c81c747a764c23,

title = "Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers",

abstract = "Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors{\textquoteright} reasons for choosing specific WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut off points and varying definitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes for the evaluation of interventions.",

keywords = "Outcome studies, Return-to-work, Survey, Vocational rehabilitation, Worker participation",

author = "Margarita Ravinskaya and Verbeek, {Jos H.} and Langendam, {Miranda W.} and Ira Madan and Verstappen, {Suzanne M.M.} and Regina Kunz and Hulshof, {Carel T.J.} and Hoving, {Jan L.}",

note = "Funding Information: SV is supported by Versus Arthritis (Grant Numbers 20385, 20380) and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

month = mar,

day = "26",

doi = "10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0",

language = "English",

volume = "32",

pages = "620--628",

journal = "JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION",

issn = "1053-0487",

publisher = "SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation

T2 - An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

AU - Ravinskaya, Margarita

AU - Verbeek, Jos H.

AU - Langendam, Miranda W.

AU - Madan, Ira

AU - Verstappen, Suzanne M.M.

AU - Kunz, Regina

AU - Hulshof, Carel T.J.

AU - Hoving, Jan L.

PY - 2022/3/26

Y1 - 2022/3/26

N2 - Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors’ reasons for choosing specific WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut off points and varying definitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes for the evaluation of interventions.

AB - Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors’ reasons for choosing specific WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut off points and varying definitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes for the evaluation of interventions.

KW - Outcome studies

KW - Return-to-work

KW - Survey

KW - Vocational rehabilitation

KW - Worker participation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127283978&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0

DO - 10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85127283978

SN - 1053-0487

VL - 32

SP - 620

EP - 628

JO - JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION

JF - JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION

IS - 4

ER -

Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this