Intermethod agreement of self-reports compared to register data collection for return to work and sickness absence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the intermethod agreement of self-reported vs. register data of 'sickness absence' (SA) and 'return to work' (RTW) outcome measurements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies reporting mean differences (MDs) and sensitivity and specificity for self-report vs. register data and an inductive analysis of the self-report question formulations. An information specialist searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO for studies published from inception to November 2022. Screening and data extraction was done by two authors independently. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included of which eighteen with an overall high risk of bias. Self-reports had a pooled MD of 1.84 SA days (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-3.41, I2 98%, 18 studies, 38,716 participants) compared to registries which varied among studies from 204 more to 17 days less. The median average sick leave in studies in the self-report group was 8 days (interquartile range 4-23 days). Being absent from work measured with self-report had a sensitivity of 0.83 (0.76-0.88 95% CI) and a specificity of 0.92 (0.88-0.94 95% CI) compared to registry data. The high heterogeneity amongst the studies could not be explained by recall time, gender, register type, prospective or retrospective self-reports, health problem, SA at baseline or risk of bias. Studies lacked standard outcome reporting, had unclearly formulated questions in self-reports and there was little information on the registers' quality. CONCLUSION: Current self-reports may differ from register-based absence data but in an inconsistent way. Due to inconsistency and high risk of bias the evidence is judged to be of very low certainty. Further research is needed to develop clear standard questions which can be used for SA and RTW self-reports. Quality of registers needs to be better evaluated. Percentage positive and negative agreement, MDs and 2 × 2 tables should be reported for studies investigating agreement between SA and RTW outcome measures.

Which outcomes should always be measured in intervention studies for improving work participation for people with a health problem? An international multistakeholder Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for Work participation (COS for Work).

OBJECTIVE: Synthesising evidence of the effects of interventions to improve work participation among people with health problems is currently difficult due to heterogeneity in outcome measurements. A core outcome set for work participation is needed. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Following the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials methodology, we used a five-step approach to reach international multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set for work participation. Five subgroups of stakeholders took part in two rounds of discussions and completed two Delphi voting rounds on 26 outcomes. A consensus of ≥80% determined core outcomes and 50%-80% consensus was required for candidate outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-eight stakeholders took part in the Delphi rounds. Core outcomes were: 'any type of employment including self-employment', 'proportion of workers that return to work after being absent because of illness' and 'time to return to work'. Ten candidate outcomes were proposed, among others: 'sustainable employment', 'work productivity' and 'workers' perception of return to work'. CONCLUSION: As a minimum, all studies evaluating the impact of interventions on work participation should include one employment outcome and two return to work outcomes if workers are on sick leave prior to the intervention.

A general framework for selecting work participation outcomes in intervention studies among persons with health problems: a concept paper.

BACKGROUND: Work participation is important for health and can be considered as engagement in a major area of life which is of significance for most people, but it can also be thought of as fulfilling or discharging a role. Currently, academic research lacks a comprehensive classification of work participation outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning is the foremost model in defining work functioning and its counterpart work disability, but it does not provide a critical (core) set of outcomes. Standardizing the definitions and nomenclature used in the research of work participation would ensure that the outcomes of studies are comparable, and practitioners and guideline developers can better decide what works best. As work participation is a broad umbrella term including outcome categories which need unambiguous differentiation, a framework needs to be developed first. AIM: To propose a framework which can be used to develop a generic core outcome set for work participation. METHODS: First, we performed a systematic literature search on the concept of (work) participation, views on how to measure it, and on existing classifications for outcome measurements. Next, we derived criteria for the framework and proposed a framework based on the criteria. Last, we applied the framework to six case studies as a proof of concept. RESULTS: Our literature search provided 2106 hits and we selected 59 studies for full-text analysis. Based on the literature and the developed criteria we propose four overarching outcome categories: (1) initiating employment, (2) having employment, (3) increasing or maintaining productivity at work, and (4) return to employment. These categories appeared feasible in our proof-of-concept assessment with six different case studies. CONCLUSION: We propose to use the framework for work participation outcomes to develop a core outcome set for intervention studies to improve work participation.

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

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.

Extensive variability of work participation outcomes measured in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how work participation outcomes in randomized controlled trials are measured internationally and across disciplines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified trials that reported on work participation in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central published between 2014 and 2019. Screening, selection, and data extraction were done by two authors independently. We grouped outcomes into four categories ("employment status", "absence from work", "at-work productivity loss," and "employability") and created subcategories according to how the outcome was measured. RESULTS: From 10,022 database hits we selected 269 trials reporting on 435 work participation outcomes. Authors used inconsistent outcome terminology to describe the measured constructs. Grouped in four main categories we identified 70 outcomes that reported on "employment status", 196 on "absence from work" and return-to-work, 132 on "at-work productivity loss," and 37 on "employability" outcomes. Variability in measurement methods existed across all categories. Employment status and absenteeism measures consisted mostly of clinimetrically unvalidated tools. "At-work productivity loss" and "employability" were measured by at least 41 different questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Extensive variability exists among trials in the measurement of outcomes, measurement methods and measurement instruments that focus on work participation. This study is a first step towards the development of a Core Outcome Set for work participation.

Proposal to extend the PROMIS® item bank v2.0 'Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities': item generation and content validity.

PURPOSE: Previous research indicated that the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) item bank v2.0 'Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities' may miss subdomains of social participation. The purpose of this study was to generate items for these missing subdomains and to evaluate their content validity. METHODS: A three-step approach was followed: (1) Item generation for 16 International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health subdomains currently not covered by the item bank; (2) Evaluation of content validity of generated items through expert review (n = 20) and think-aloud interviews with a purposeful sample of people with and without (chronic) health conditions (n = 10), to assess item comprehensibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness; and 3) Item revision based on the results of step 2, in a consensus procedure. RESULTS: First, 48 items were generated. Second, overall, content experts indicated that the generated items were relevant. Furthermore, based on experts' responses, items were simplified and 'participation in social media' was identified as an important additional subdomain of social participation. Additionally, 'participating in various social roles simultaneously' was identified as a missing item. Based on the responses of the interviewed adults items were simplified. Third, in total 17 items, covering 17 subdomains, were proposed to be added to the original item bank. DISCUSSION: The relevance, comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of the 17 proposed items were supported. Whether the proposed extension of the item bank leads to better psychometric properties of the item bank should be tested in a large-scale field study.