Adding value for clients during work disability assessments: A qualitative exploration from the perspective of medical examiners.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare delivery focuses on optimizing care provided by measuring the healthcare outcomes which are most important to the clients relative to the total care costs. However, the understanding of what adds value for clients during work disability assessment is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To explore what medical examiners (MEs) perceive as valuable during the work disability assessment process, by exploring possible: 1) facilitators, 2) barriers and 3) opportunities to add value for the client during the work disability assessment. METHODS: For this explorative qualitative study, 7 semi-structured interviews were conducted with MEs in the Netherlands. Thematic coding was performed for all interviews. RESULTS: A large variety of facilitators (n = 22), barriers (n = 17) and opportunities (n = 11) were identified and inductively subdivided into four main themes: 1) coherent process, including all time related aspects, 2) interdisciplinary collaboration, including all aspects related to the collaboration between the ME and other professionals, 3) client-centred interaction, including all aspects related to the supportive interplay from the ME towards the client, and 4) information provision on all aspects during the work disability assessment process towards the client to ensure a valuable work disability assessment process. CONCLUSIONS: The overview of identified possible facilitators, barriers and opportunities to add value for clients from the perspective of the ME may stimulate improvement in the current work disability assessment practice and to better match the client needs.

Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

Do current methods of measuring the impact of chronic pain on work reflect the experience of working-age adults? An integrated mixed-methods systematic narrative review.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain affects individuals' work participation. The impact of chronic pain on work has historically been measured through sickness absence, though it is now appreciated that the impacts on work are far wider. This mixed-methods review aimed to identify the full range of impacts of pain on work in addition to impacts that are currently measured quantitatively to inform the development of a new questionnaire assessing the wider impacts of chronic pain on work. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that included quantitative measures of the impact of chronic pain on work and for qualitative studies where individuals described impacts of their chronic pain on work. Quantitative measures, and text from qualitative studies, were analysed thematically. A thematic framework was developed for establishing the types of impacts measured or described in the literature. Forty-four quantitative and 16 qualitative papers were identified. The literature described impacts within 5 areas: changes at work and to working status; aspects of the workplace and work relationships; pain and related symptoms at work; psychological factors; and factors and impacts outside the work environment related to work. Quantitative measures mainly assessed impacts related to the quantity and quality of work (29 of 42 measures). Seventeen aspects were only discussed within the qualitative literature. This study identifies a discrepancy between the impacts that have been the focus of quantitative measures and the range that individuals working with chronic pain experience and highlights the need for a new measure assessing a wider range of issues.

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.

Designing an evidence-based working method for medical work disability prognosis evaluation-an intervention mapping approach.

Purpose: Performing evidence-based work disability prognosis evaluation (WDPE) of clients on sick leave is a difficult task for physicians. The aim was to develop a working method to support physicians in performing evidence-based WDPE and to improve WDPE quality. Materials and methods: Intervention Mapping (IM) supplemented with elements of the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) guided project planning for developing the working method. This approach allowed combination with other frameworks and, e.g., behavior change theories. WDPE quality challenges were analyzed on various ecological levels, e.g., the individual (i.e., the physician), interpersonal (i.e., the client) and organizational level, culminating into a multilevel logic model of the problem. Determinants that contributed to this problem, e.g., lack of physicians' knowledge on performing evidence-based WDPE, were identified. Performance objectives were formulated that could contribute to a desired change in WDPE quality. From the performance objectives and determinants (e.g., knowledge), change objectives were derived. In order to achieve these change objectives, suitable intervention functions (e.g., education) and policy categories (e.g., service provision) were identified, allowing the formulation of intervention components. Behavior change techniques (e.g., feedback on outcomes of a behavior) were selected to serve the intervention functions to deliver the desired change. This led to the conceptualization of an intervention plan. Results: The intervention "Prognosable" is presented. It consists of a stepwise working method (SWM) for evidence-based WDPE. The SWM offers an overview of important aspects (e.g., medical condition, clients' confidence in return-to-work) to consider in individual clients' WDPE. The SWM helps physicians to identify crucial functional limitations, find and appraise evidence-based information, weigh all relevant prognostic aspects and it supports physicians to conclude with an evidence-based WDPE, tailored to the individual client. The intervention "Prognosable" was designed, which also includes an educational program and a supportive software tool to enable implementation of the SWM. Conclusion: IM combined with BCW elements guided the development of a SWM for evidence-based WDPE. The SWM will be delivered through an educational program for physicians supported by a digital tool. The SWM, educational program and digital tool are ready to be implemented and evaluated in practice as the intervention "Prognosable."

Work-focused healthcare from the perspective of employees living with cardiovascular disease: a patient experience journey mapping study.

BACKGROUND: People living with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) often experience work participation problems. Good work-focused healthcare, defined as the received advice, treatment, and guidance focusing on work participation, can support the patient and work place. However, experiences with work-focused healthcare are generally not always positive which is a barrier for work participation. Therefore, the objective of this study is to gain insight into the work-focused healthcare journey from the perspective of patients with work participation problems due to CVD, to understand their experiences and needs, and to derive opportunities for improving work-focused healthcare service at a system level. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews, preceded by preparatory assignments, were conducted with 17 patients who experience(d) work participation problems due to CVD. The patient experience journey map (PEJM) approach was used to visualize the patients' work-focused healthcare journey, including experiences and needs over time and place, from which opportunities to improve work-focused healthcare from the patient's perspective were derived. RESULTS: An aggregated PEJM consisting of six phases was composed and graphically mapped. The first phase, working, represents a period in which CVD health problems and subsequent functional limitations occur. The next two phases, short- and long-term sick leave, represent a period of full sick leave. The last three phases, start-, partial-, and full vocational reintegration, focus on the process of return to work that takes place ranging from a few months up to several years after sick-listing. For each phase the touchpoints, timespan, stakeholders, activities, experiences and needs from the perspective of the patients were identified. Finally, for better work-focused healthcare nine opportunities for improvement were derived from the PEJM, e.g. emphasize the need for work adjustment prior to the medical intervention, provide more personalized advice on handling work limitations, and putting more compelling pressure on the employer to create suitable work positions for their employees. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This paper contributes insights to provide a more patient-centered work-focused healthcare trajectory for patients employed in paid jobs when living with CVD. The PEJM provides an understanding of the patients' perspectives throughout their work-focused healthcare journey and highlights opportunities for improvement towards a better suited and seamless patient journey, Although this research was conducted within the Dutch healthcare system, it can be assumed that the findings on integrated work-focused healthcare are largly transferable to other healthcare systems.

Predictors for work participation of people with visual impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess factors associated with work participation in people with visual impairments and to explore how these factors may have changed over time. METHOD: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase.com, EBSCO/APA PsycInfo, EBSCO/CINAHL and EBSCO/ERIC from database inception to 1 April 2022 was performed. We included studies with cross-sectional design, case-control, case-series or cohort design, involving visually impaired working-age adults with at least moderate visual impairment, and evaluated the association between visual impairment and work participation. Studies involving participants with deaf-blindness or multiple disabilities were excluded. We assessed study quality (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [NOS]), examined between-study heterogeneity and performed subgroup analyses. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42021241076. RESULTS: Of 13,585 records, 57 articles described 55 studies including 1,326,091 participants from mostly high-income countries. Sociodemographic factors associated with employment included higher education (odds ratio [OR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47 to 4.51, I2 0%), being male (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.84, I2 95%), having a partner (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.67, I2 34%), white ethnicity (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.74, I2 0%) and having financial assistance (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.55, I2 85%). Disease-related factors included worse visual impairment (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, I2 98%) or having additional disabilities (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.62, I2 16%). Intervention-related factors included mobility aid utilisation (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18, I2 94%). A potential moderating effect of time period and geographical region was observed for some factors. Study quality (NOS) was rated moderate to high. CONCLUSION: Several sociodemographic and disease related factors were associated with employment status. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of overall high heterogeneity. Future research should focus on the role of workplace factors, technological adjustments and vocational rehabilitation services on work participation.

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.

2021 EULAR points to consider to support people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases to participate in healthy and sustainable paid work.

AIM: As part of its strategic objectives for 2023, EULAR aims to improve the work participation of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). One strategic initiative focused on the development of overarching points to consider (PtC) to support people with RMDs in healthy and sustainable paid work participation. METHODS: EULAR's standardised operating procedures were followed. A steering group identified six research areas on paid work participation. Three systematic literature reviews, several non-systematic reviews and two surveys were conducted. A multidisciplinary taskforce of 25 experts from 10 European countries and Canada formulated overarching principles and PtC after discussion of the results of literature reviews and surveys. Consensus was obtained through voting, with levels of agreement obtained anonymously. RESULTS: Three overarching principles and 11 PtC were formulated. The PtC recognise various stakeholders are important to improving work participation. Five PtC emphasise shared responsibilities (eg, obligation to provide active support) (PtC 1, 2, 3, 5, 6). One encourages people with RMDs to discuss work limitations when necessary at each phase of their working life (PtC 4) and two focus on the role of interventions by healthcare providers or employers (PtC 7, 8). Employers are encouraged to create inclusive and flexible workplaces (PtC 10) and policymakers to make necessary changes in social and labour policies (PtC 9, 11). A research agenda highlights the necessity for stronger evidence aimed at personalising work-related support to the diverse needs of people with RMDs. CONCLUSION: Implementation of these EULAR PtC will improve healthy and sustainable work participation of people with RMDs.

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.

Evidence-informed decision about (de-)implementing return-to-work coordination to reduce sick leave: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Coordination of return to work (RtW) is implemented in many countries, but a Cochrane review found no considerable effect on workers' sick leave compared to usual care. The aim of the study is to analyse how the evidence from this review can be used for decisions about (de-)implementing RtW coordination in a country-specific setting, using Finland as an example. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search and online survey with two groups of experts to compare interventions included in the Cochrane review to Finnish RtW practice using content analysis methods. We applied the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework criteria to draw conclusions about (de-)implementing RtW coordination in Finland, including benefits, harms and costs of the intervention compared to usual care. RESULTS: We included seven documents from the literature search and received data from 10 of 42 survey participants. RtW coordination included, both in Finland and in the review, at least one face-to-face meeting between the physician and the worker, a workers' needs assessment, and an individual RtW plan and its implementation. Usual care focuses on medical treatment and may include general RtW advice. RtW coordination would be cost-saving if it decreases sick leave with at least 2 days compared to usual care. The evidence in the Cochrane review was mainly of low certainty, and the effect sizes had relatively wide confidence intervals. Only a new, high-quality and large randomized controlled trial (RCT) can decrease the current uncertainty, but this is unlikely to happen. The EtD framework did not provide arguments for further implementation or for de-implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions evaluated in the Cochrane review are similar to RtW coordination and usual care interventions in Finland. Considering all EtD framework criteria, including certainty of the evidence and costs, de-implementation of RtW coordination interventions in Finland seems unnecessary. Better evidence about the costs and stakeholders' values regarding RtW coordination is needed to improve decision-making.

The perceived importance of prognostic aspects considered by physicians during work disability evaluation: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Assessing prognosis is challenging for many physicians in various medical fields. Research shows that physicians who perform disability assessments consider six areas when evaluating a prognosis: disease, treatment, course of the disease, external information, patient-related and physician-related aspects. We administered a questionnaire to evaluate how physicians rate the importance of these six prognosis areas during work disability evaluation and to explore what kind of support they would like during prognosis assessment. METHODS: Seventy-six physicians scored the importance of 23 prognostic aspects distributed over six prognosis areas. Participants scored the importance of each aspect both "in general" and from the perspective of a case vignette of a worker with a severe degenerative disease. The questionnaire also covered needs and suggestions for support during the evaluation of prognoses. RESULTS: Medical areas that are related to the disease, or the treatment or course of the disease, appeared important (scores of 7.0-9.0), with less differing opinions among participants (IQR 1.0-3.0). Corresponding verbatim remarks supported the importance of disease and treatment as prognostic aspects. In comparison, patient- and physician-related aspects scored somewhat lower, with more variability (range 4.0-8.0, with IQR 2.0-5.0 for patient- and physician-related considerations). Participants indicated a need for a tool or online database that includes prognostic aspects and prognostic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some variation in scores, the physicians rated all six prognosis areas as important for work disability evaluations. This study provides suggested aids to prognosis assessment, including an online support tool based on evidence-based medicine features.

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.

Work participation in patients with systematic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed which variables are associated with or are predictors for work participation outcomes in patients with systematic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: A literature search using MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase and CINAHL was conducted to identify all studies published from inception (1947) to June 2021 on factors related to and/or predicting employment status, absenteeism and/or presenteeism in SLE patients aged ≥18 years. The quality of included articles was assessed using the QUIPS tool. Narrative summaries were used to present the data. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (nine on associations, four on predictions, and two assessing both) were included, encompassing data of 3800 employed patients. Younger age, Caucasian ethnicity, higher educational level, lower disease activity score, shorter disease duration, absence of specific disease manifestations, higher levels of physical functioning and less physical job demands and higher levels of psychological/cognitive functioning were associated with or predicted favorable work outcomes. Older age, non-Caucasian ethnicity, female gender, never being married, poverty, lower educational level, higher disease activity score, longer disease duration, specific disease manifestations, lower levels of physical functioning, more physical job demands and low job control, less job tenure and lower levels of cognitive functioning were associated with or predicted an unfavorable work outcome. Limitations of the evidence were the quality of the studies and the use of heterogeneous outcome measures, applied statistical methods and instruments used to assess work participation. CONCLUSION: We recommend applying the EULAR points to consider for designing, analysing and reporting on work participation in inflammatory arthritis also to SLE studies on work participation, to enhance the quality and comparability between studies and to better understand the impact of SLE on work participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: registration in PROSPERO (CRD42020161275; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=161275).

How to facilitate guideline use? A bottom-up qualitative approach developing a training programme for professionals involved in work participation of people with a chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: A guideline for occupational health professionals (OHPs) is developed which provides them with knowledge and skills to optimize their guidance to people with a chronic disease. OBJECTIVE: Developing a training programme to acquire and apply knowledge and skills provided by the guideline, through a bottom-up approach. METHODS: First, OHPs training needs were explored using focus groups. Second, learning objectives were formulated by the researchers. Third, experts in the field of education were interviewed to explore relevant training activities. Fourth, researchers integrated all the results into a training programme. RESULTS: Based on the training needs identified, we formulated 17 learning objectives, e.g. being able to name influential factors and effective interventions, increase the individual client's role, and increase communication with a professionals to enhance work participation of people with a chronic disease. The training activities identified by experts for OHPs to acquire and apply knowledge and skills were: a case study, role play, discussion of best practices and interviewing stakeholders. These were all performed in plenary sessions or small groups. CONCLUSIONS: Training needs, -activities and learning objectives were integrated into a six-hour training programme. This bottom-up approach can serve as input for others developing training programmes to transfer knowledge and skills to OHPs.

An approach to quantifying the potential importance of residual confounding in systematic reviews of observational studies: A GRADE concept paper.

Small relative effect sizes are common in observational studies of exposure in environmental and public health. However, such effects can still have considerable policy importance when the baseline rate of the health outcome is high, and many persons are exposed. Assessing the certainty of the evidence based on these effect sizes is challenging because they can be prone to residual confounding due to the non-randomized nature of the evidence. When applying GRADE, a precise relative risk >2.0 increases the certainty in an existing effect because residual confounding is unlikely to explain the association. GRADE also suggests rating up when opposing plausible residual confounding exists for other effect sizes. In this concept paper, we propose using the E-value, defined as the smallest effect size of a confounder that still can reduce an observed RR to the null value, and a reference confounder to assess the likelihood of residual confounding. We propose a 4-step approach. 1. Assess the association of interest for relevant exposure levels. 2. Calculate the E-value for this observed association. 3. Choose a reference confounder with sufficient strength and information and assess its effect on the observed association using the E-value. 4. Assess how likely it is that residual confounding will still bias the observed RR. We present three case studies and discuss the feasibility of the approach.

Quality of reporting and risk of bias: a review of randomised trials in occupational health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of randomisation and allocation methods in occupational health and safety (OHS) trials in relation to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) requirements of journals, risk of bias (RoB) and publication year. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed between 2010 and May 2019 in 18 OHS journals. We measured reporting quality as percentage compliance with the CONSORT 2010 checklist (items 8-10) and RoB with the ROB V.2.0 tool (first domain). We tested the mean difference (MD) in % in reporting quality between CONSORT-requiring and non-requiring journals, trials with low, some concern and high RoB and publications before and after 2015. RESULTS: In 135 articles reporting on 129 RCTs, average reporting quality was at 37.4% compliance (95% CI 31.9% to 43.0%), with 10% of articles reaching 100% compliance. Reporting quality was significantly better in CONSORT-requiring journals than non-requiring journals (MD 31.0% (95% CI 21.4% to 40.7%)), for studies at low RoB than high RoB (MD 33.1% (95% CI 16.1% to 50.2%)) and with RoB of some concern (MD 39.8% (95% CI 30.0% to 49.7%)). Reporting quality did not improve over time (MD -5.7% (95% CI -16.8% to 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Articles in CONSORT-requiring journals and of low RoB studies show better reporting quality. Low reporting quality is linked to unclear RoB judgements (some concern). Reporting quality did not improve over the last 10 years and CONSORT is insufficiently implemented. Concerted efforts by editors and authors are needed to improve CONSORT implementation.