ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Clinical work-integrating care (CWIC) refers to paying attention to work participation in a clinical setting. Working patients may benefit from CWIC. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent and nature to which medical specialists provide CWIC and what policies and guidelines oblige or recommend specialists to do. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies on the extent and nature of CWIC and supplemented by gray literature on policies and guidelines. Six main categories were defined a priori. Applying a meta-aggregative approach, subcategories were subsequently defined using qualitative data. Next, quantitative findings were integrated into these subcategories. A separate narrative of policies and guidelines using the same main categories was constructed. RESULTS: In total, 70 studies and 55 gray literature documents were included. The main findings per category were as follows: (1) collecting data on the occupation of patients varied widely; (2) most specialists did not routinely discuss work, but recent studies showed an increasing tendency to do so, which corresponds to recent policies and guidelines; (3) work-related advice ranged from general advice to patient-physician collaboration about work-related decisions; (4) CWIC was driven by legislation in many countries; (5) specialists sometimes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams to provide CWIC; and (6) medical guidelines regarding CWIC were generally not available. CONCLUSION: Medical specialists provide a wide variety of CWIC ranging from assessing a patient's occupation to extensive collaboration with patients and other professionals to support work participation. Lack of medical guidelines could explain the variety of these practices.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Cooperation between clinical and occupational health care practitioners is a key aspect of clinical work-integrating care. This study aimed to gain insight into patients' experiences, needs, and expectations regarding cooperation between medical specialists and occupational health physicians. METHODS: A thematic qualitative study was conducted involving a total of 33 participants in eight online focus groups. RESULTS: Participants indicated practitioners are currently working in an isolated manner. However, participants desired for partnership between specialists and occupational health physicians to address work-related concerns and showed a need for explanation of the consequences of their diagnosis, so this can be translated into their ability to work. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, cooperation between clinical and occupational health care is lacking. Yet, some participants experienced that these disciplines could complement each other by working together to support patients in work participation.
Subject(s)
Occupational Health Physicians , Humans , Motivation , Qualitative Research , Focus GroupsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Attention to paid work in clinical health care-clinical work-integrating care (CWIC)-might be beneficial for patients of working age. However, the perceptions and expectations of patients about CWIC are unknown. The aim of this study was to develop an understanding of current practices, needs, and expectations among patients for discussing work with a medical specialist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken involving patients with diverse medical conditions (n = 33). Eight online synchronous focus groups were held. A thematic analysis was then performed. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the data: (1) the process of becoming a patient while wanting to work again, (2) different needs for different patients, (3) patients' expectations of CWIC. We identified three different overarching categories of work-concerns: (a) the impact of work on disease, (b) the impact of disease or treatment on work ability, and (c) concerns when work ability remained decreased. For each category of concerns, patients expected medical specialists to perform differing roles. CONCLUSIONS: Patients indicated that they need support for work-related concerns from their medical specialists and/or other professionals. Currently, not all work concerns received the requested attention, leaving a portion of the patients with unmet needs regarding CWIC.
Patients have a wide range of questions regarding work and health, which they want to discuss with their medical specialistIn current clinical practice, not all work concerns get the requested attention, leaving some patients with unmet needsCooperation with different health care professionals, including rehabilitation occupational health care, might aid in supporting patients with their work-related questions.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To develop a translated Dutch version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) and test its psychometric properties in a Dutch population with foot and ankle complaints. METHODS: The CAIT was translated into the Dutch language using a forward-backward translation design. Of the 130 subsequent patients visiting the outpatient clinic for foot and ankle complaints who were asked to fill out a questionnaire containing the CAIT, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain, 98 completed the questionnaire. After a 1-week period, patients were asked to fill out a second questionnaire online containing the CAIT and NRS pain. This second questionnaire was completed by 70 patients. With these data, the construct validity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, and ceiling and floor effects were assessed. Additionally, a cut-off value to discriminate between stable and unstable ankles, in patients with ankle complaints, was calculated. RESULTS: Construct validity showed moderate correlations between the CAIT and FAOS subscales (Spearman's correlation coefficient (SCC) = 0.36-0.43), and the NRS pain (SCC = -0.55). The cut-off value was found at 11.5 points of the total CAIT score (range 0-30). Test-retest reliability showed to be excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α = 0.86). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, the Dutch version of the CAIT is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess ankle instability in the Dutch population and is able to differentiate between a functionally unstable and stable ankle. The tool is the first suitable tool to objectify the severity of ankle instability specific complaints and assess change in the Dutch population. Level of evidence II.
