Material handling performance of patients with chronic low back pain during Functional Capacity Evaluation: A comparison between three countries

Short-Term Effects of a Passive Spinal Exoskeleton on Functional Performance, Discomfort and User Satisfaction in Patients with Low Back Pain

Purpose Low back pain (LBP) remains a major worldwide healthcare issue. Recently, spinal exoskeletons were proposed as a potentially useful solution for LBP prevention and vocational reintegration for people who perform heavy load lifting, repetitive movements or work in prolonged static postures. The purpose of this study was to investigate how patients with LBP respond to the novel passive SPEXOR exoskeleton regarding functional performance, discomfort and general user impression. Methods Fourteen patients, with low to moderate LBP (2-7 on a 0-10 scale), performed 12 functional tasks with and without the exoskeleton. In addition to objective performance measures, participants subjectively assessed the level of local low back discomfort, task difficulty and general discomfort on a 0-10 visual analogue scales. Results The SPEXOR exoskeleton had favourable effects on performance and local discomfort during prolonged static forward bending. Minor reductions in performance were observed for sit-stand and ladder climbing tasks. The discomfort associated with the exoskeleton was generally low to moderate (median < 4), except for the 6-min walk test (median = 4.5), which is likely due to the weight of the device and obstruction of upper limb movement. The general impressions were mostly positive, with good adjustability, low interference with the movement and moderate support reported by the participants. Conclusion The SPEXOR exoskeleton is potentially useful for LBP prevention or management, however, further improvements are needed to provide higher levels support during heavy load lifting.

Functional Capacity Evaluation for Injuries to the Foot and Ankle

BACKGROUND

The functional capacity evaluation (FCE) is used to determine physical ability after treatment of a workplace-related injury. This evaluation is a determinant in the administration of benefits and the decision to return to work (RTW). The purpose of this study was to characterize FCE results and ability to RTW after treatment for workplace-related orthopedic injuries to the foot or ankle.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record review from the practices of 4 orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons was conducted. Inclusion criteria were a workplace-related injury to the foot or ankle, at least 2 years of follow-up, and an associated FCE. The FCE report and clinic notes were used to determine the patient's preinjury job requirement, postinjury FCE-determined ability, specific FCE- or physician-imposed work restrictions, and clearance to RTW. A total of 188 patients met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 74.4% of patients had FCE-determined work abilities at or above their preinjury job requirements, and 63.3% of patients were cleared to RTW. The mean time from injury to FCE was 1.9 ± 1.5 years, and the mean time to clearance for RTW was 2.0 ± 1.3 years. A less strenuous preinjury job requirement was positively associated with both the FCE-determined ability meeting the preinjury job requirement (P < .001) and clearance to RTW (P = .034).

CONCLUSION

Two in 3 patients were cleared to RTW following workplace-related injuries to the foot or ankle culminating in an FCE. However, it took a mean of 2 years to achieve this clearance. Patients with more strenuous jobs were less likely to be able to RTW after injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Functional Capacity Evaluation in Different Societal Contexts: Results of a Multicountry Study

Purpose To examine factors associated with Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) results in patients with painful musculoskeletal conditions, with focus on social factors across multiple countries. Methods International cross-sectional study was performed within care as usual. Simple and multiple multilevel linear regression analyses which considered measurement's dependency within clinicians and country were conducted: FCE characteristics and biopsychosocial variables from patients and clinicians as independent variables; and FCE results (floor-to-waist lift, six-minute walk, and handgrip strength) as dependent variables. Results Data were collected for 372 patients, 54 clinicians, 18 facilities and 8 countries. Patients' height and reported pain intensity were consistently associated with every FCE result. Patients' sex, height, reported pain intensity, effort during FCE, social isolation, and disability, clinician's observed physical effort, and whether FCE test was prematurely ended were associated with lift. Patient's height, Body Mass Index, post-test heart-rate, reported pain intensity and effort during FCE, days off work, and whether FCE test was prematurely ended were associated with walk. Patient's age, sex, height, affected body area, reported pain intensity and catastrophizing, and physical work demands were associated with handgrip. Final regression models explained 38‒65% of total variance. Clinician and country random effects composed 1-39% of total residual variance in these models. Conclusion Biopsychosocial factors were associated with every FCE result across multiple countries; specifically, patients' height, reported pain intensity, clinician, and measurement country. Social factors, which had been under-researched, were consistently associated with FCE performances. Patients' FCE results should be considered from a biopsychosocial perspective, including different social contexts.

Association between social factors and performance during Functional Capacity Evaluations: a systematic review

Purpose: Determine the association of different social factors with Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) performance in adults. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO electronic databases. Studies were eligible if they studied social factor's association with the performance of adults undergoing FCE. Studies were assessed on methodological quality and quality of evidence. The review was performed using best-evidence synthesis methods. Results: Thirteen studies were eligible and 11 social factors were studied. Considerable heterogeneity regarding measurements, populations, and methods existed among the studies. High quality of evidence was found for the association of FCE performance with the country of FCE and examiner's fear behavior; moderate quality of evidence with previous job salary; and low or very low quality of evidence with compensation status, litigation status, type of instruction, time of day (workday), primary or mother language, and ethnicity. Other social factors were not studied. Conclusions: Evidence for associations of various social factors with FCE performance was found, but robust conclusions about the strength of the associations cannot be made. Quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Further research on social factors, also within a biopsychosocial context, is necessary to provide a better understanding of FCE performance. Implications for Rehabilitation Research on Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) performance and its association with biopsychosocial factors have scarcely addressed the impact of social factors, limiting full understanding of FCE results. The social factors, healthcare (examiner's fear behavior and type of instruction), personal or cultural systems (country of FCE, primary or mother language, and ethnicity), workplace system (previous job salary, time of day (workday)), and legislative and insurance system (compensation and litigation status), have a bearing in FCE performance. Better understanding of factors associating with functional capacity provide insights in FCE, allowing clinicians to improve the evaluations and interpretations of the assessment and better design the rehabilitation program. Better understanding of factors that influence FCE performance, and of unstudied factors, will allow researchers guidance to further investigate the construct of functional capacity.

Influence of Physical Therapists' Kinesiophobic Beliefs on Lifting Capacity in Healthy Adults

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists' recommendations to patients to avoid daily physical activity can be influenced by the therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs. Little is known about the amount of influence of a physical therapist's kinesiophobic beliefs on a patient's actual lifting capacity during a lifting test.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the influence of physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs on lifting capacity in healthy people.

DESIGN

A blinded, cluster-randomized cross-sectional study was performed.

METHODS

The participants (n=256; 105 male, 151 female) were physical therapist students who performed a lifting capacity test. Examiners (n=24) were selected from second-year physical therapist students. Participants in group A (n=124) were tested in the presence of an examiner with high scores on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for health care providers (TSK-HC), and those in group B (n=132) were tested in the presence of an examiner with low scores on the TSK-HC. Mixed-model analyses were performed on lifting capacity to test for possible (interacting) effects.

RESULTS

Mean lifting capacity was 32.1 kg (SD=13.6) in group A and 39.6 kg (SD=16.4) in group B. Mixed-model analyses revealed that after controlling for sex, body weight, self-efficacy, and the interaction between the examiners' and participants' kinesiophobic beliefs, the influence of examiners' kinesiophobic beliefs significantly reduced lifting capacity by 14.4 kg in participants with kinesiophobic beliefs and 8.0 kg in those without kinesiophobic beliefs.

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability to physical therapists and patients with pain should be studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs negatively influence lifting capacity of healthy adults. During everyday clinical practice, physical therapists should be aware of the influence of their kinesiophobic beliefs on patients' functional ability.

Construct Validity of Functional Capacity Evaluation in Patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders

PURPOSE

The construct validity of functional capacity evaluations (FCE) in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) is unknown. The aim of this study was to analyse the validity of FCE in patients with WAD with cultural differences within a workers' compensation setting.

METHODS

314 participants (42% females, mean age 36.7 years) with WAD (grade I and II) were referred for an interdisciplinary assessment that included FCE tests. Four FCE tests (hand grip strength, lifting waist to overhead, overhead working, and repetitive reaching) and a number of concurrent variables such as self-reported pain, capacity, disability, and psychological distress were measured. To test construct validity, 29 a priori formulated hypotheses were tested, 4 related to gender differences, 20 related associations with other constructs, 5 related to cultural differences.

RESULTS

Men had significantly more hand grip strength (+17.5 kg) and lifted more weight (+3.7 kg): two out of four gender-related hypotheses were confirmed. Correlation between FCE and pain ranged from -0.39 to 0.31; FCE and self-reported capacity from -0.42 to 0.61; FCE and disability from -0.45 to 0.34; FCE and anxiety from -0.36 to 0.27; and FCE and depression from -0.41 to 0.34: 16 of 20 hypotheses regarding FCE and other constructs were confirmed. FCE test results between the cultural groups differed significantly (4 hypotheses confirmed) and effect size (ES) between correlations were small (1 hypothesis confirmed). In total 23 out of 29 hypotheses were confirmed (79%).

CONCLUSIONS

The construct validity for testing functional capacity was confirmed for the majority of FCE tests in patients with WAD with cultural differences and in a workers' compensation setting. Additional validation studies in other settings are needed for verification.

Functional Capacity Evaluation: Performance of Patients with Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain Without Waddell Signs

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of Waddell signs (WS) on Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) undergoing fitness for work evaluation. If an effect is observed, the secondary objective is to report performance of patients without WS in a standardized 1 day FCE protocol.

METHODS

Survey of patients with CNSLBP as their primary complaint, referred for fitness for work evaluation, age between 20 and 60 years. Main outcome measures were WS and performance during manual handling assessed with lifting from floor to waist, waist to crown, horizontal and one handed carry; grip strength with Jamar hand held Dynamometer; ambulation with stair climbing and six minute walking test; work postures with elevated work, forward bend standing, kneeling, and sitting.

RESULTS

145 male with a mean age of 44.5 years (±10.1), and 53 females with a mean age of 43.6 years (±11.0) were included. Mean days off work were in male 658 (±1,056) and in female 642 (±886). 33% of all patients presented positive WS. FCE performance in male and female patients with positive and negative WS differed significantly in all comparisons except grip strength of the dominant hand and sitting in female. Performance of patients with negative WS indicated a mean physical capacity corresponding to lightmedium work in females and medium work in males for both age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

WS should be assessed for interpretation of FCE results. Despite long work absence, patients with CNSLBP with negative WS demonstrated a physical capacity corresponding to substantial physical work demands.

Experts opinion on the use of normative data for functional capacity evaluation in occupational and rehabilitation medicine and disability claims

PURPOSE

Application of normative values for functional capacity evaluation (FCE) is controversial for the assessment of clients for work ability. The objective of this study was to study when clinicians and researchers consider normative values of FCE useful or of no use for their purposes.

METHODS

A focus group meeting was organized among 43 FCE experts working in insurance, occupational and/or rehabilitation medicine from eight countries during the first international FCE research meeting on October 25th, 2012 in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to rate to which degree they agree or disagree with a statement concerning their position toward normative values for FCE on a 10 cm VAS ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 100 (completely agree) at T0 and T1. Arguments for aspects that are useful and of no use for normative values were systematically collected during the meeting and afterwards independently clustered by two researchers in higher order topics.

RESULTS

Baseline opinion of participants on their position toward normative values was 49 ± 29 points. After the meeting, mean VAS was 55 ± 23 (p = 0.07), indicating that participants did not significantly change their opinion toward normative values. Based on arguments provided by the experts, seven higher order topics were constructed namely 'Comparison with job demands or treatment goals'; 'Comparison with co-workers physical ability'; 'Sincerity of effort'; 'Validity for work ability and return to work'; 'Experience of referrer with assessment method'; 'Clinimetrics compared to alternative assessment methods or reference values'; and 'Ease of use for clinician and stakeholders'.

CONCLUSIONS

Although experts state useful aspects for the use of normative values of FCE for these assessments, it may also lead to over-interpretation of results, leading to dualistic statements concerning work ability, with potential harmful consequences for work ability of patients.

A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing functional capacity evaluation and functional interviewing as components of occupational rehabilitation programs

PURPOSE

Functional capacity evaluations (FCE) are used to identify work abilities and are commonly integrated into rehabilitation programs. We studied whether integrating FCE into rehabilitation leads to better outcomes for injured workers.

METHODS

A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted at a workers' compensation rehabilitation facility (registration ISRCTN61284905). Clinicians were randomised into 2 groups: 1 group used FCE while another conducted semi-structured functional interviews. Outcomes included recommendations following assessment, rehabilitation program outcomes including functional work levels and pain intensity, as well as compensation outcomes at 1, 3, and 6 months after assessment. Analysis included Mann-Whitney U, Chi square and t tests.

RESULTS

Subjects included 225 claimants of whom 105 were tested with FCE. Subjects were predominantly employed (84 %) males (63 %) with sub-acute musculoskeletal conditions (median duration 67 days). Claimants undergoing FCE had ~15 % higher average functional work levels recommended at time of assessment (Mann-Whitney U = 4,391.0, p < 0.001) but differences at other follow-up times were smaller (0-8 %), in favour of functional interviewing, and not statistically significant. Clinically important improvement during rehabilitation in functional work level (0.9/4, SRM = 0.94), pain intensity (2.0/10, SRM = 0.88) and self-reported disability (21.8/100, SRM = 1.45) were only observed in those undergoing the functional interview.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance-based FCE integrated into occupational rehabilitation appears to lead to higher baseline functional work levels compared to a semi-structured functional interview, but not improved RTW rates or functional work levels at follow-up. Functional interviewing has potential for efficiency gains and higher likelihood of clinically important improvement following rehabilitation, however further research is needed.

Topics and trends in research on non-clinical interventions aimed at preventing prolonged work disability in workers compensated for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs): a systematic, comprehensive literature review

PURPOSE

This study sought to provide an overview of the main topics and trends in contemporary research on successful non-clinical interventions for preventing prolonged work disability in workers compensated for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs).

METHODS

A systematic electronic search (English and French) was performed in ten scientific databases using keywords and descriptors. After screening the identified titles and abstracts using specific sets of criteria, categorical and thematic analyses were performed on the retained articles.

RESULTS

Five main topics appear to dominate the research: (1) risk factors and determinants; (2) effectiveness of interventions (programmes, specific components, strategies and policies); (3) viewpoints, experiences and perceptions of specific actors involved in the intervention process; (4) compensation issues; and (5) measurement issues. A currently widespread trend is early screening to identify risks factors for appropriate intervention and multidisciplinary, multimodal approaches. Morover, workplace-related psychosocial and ergonomic factors are considered vital to the success and sustainability of return-to-work (RTW) interventions. Finally, involving workplace actors, and more specifically, affected workers, in the RTW process appears to be a powerful force in improving the chances of moving workers away from disabled status.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this literature review provide with information about the main topics and trends in research on rehabilitation interventions, revealing some successful modalities of intervention aimed at preventing prolonged work disability.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

Successful intervention for preventing prolonged work disability in workers compensated for WRMSDs address workplace issues: physical and psychosocial demands at work, ability of the workers to fill these demands, work organization and support of the worker, and worker' beliefs and attitudes related to work. Successful intervention promotes collaboration, coordination between all actors and stakeholders involved in the process of rehabilitation. Strategies able to mobilize the employees, employers, insurers and health care providers are still needed to be implemented.

Construct validity of functional capacity tests in healthy workers

BACKGROUND

Functional Capacity (FC) is a multidimensional construct within the activity domain of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF). Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are assessments of work-related FC. The extent to which these work-related FC tests are associated to bio-, psycho-, or social factors is unknown. The aims of this study were to test relationships between FC tests and other ICF factors in a sample of healthy workers, and to determine the amount of statistical variance in FC tests that can be explained by these factors.

METHODS

A cross sectional study. The sample was comprised of 403 healthy workers who completed material handling FC tests (lifting low, overhead lifting, and carrying) and static work FC tests (overhead working and standing forward bend). The explainable variables were; six muscle strength tests; aerobic capacity test; and questionnaires regarding personal factors (age, gender, body height, body weight, and education), psychological factors (mental health, vitality, and general health perceptions), and social factors (perception of work, physical workloads, sport-, leisure time-, and work-index). A priori construct validity hypotheses were formulated and analyzed by means of correlation coefficients and regression analyses.

RESULTS

Moderate correlations were detected between material handling FC tests and muscle strength, gender, body weight, and body height. As for static work FC tests; overhead working correlated fair with aerobic capacity and handgrip strength, and low with the sport-index and perception of work. For standing forward bend FC test, all hypotheses were rejected. The regression model revealed that 61% to 62% of material handling FC tests were explained by physical factors. Five to 15% of static work FC tests were explained by physical and social factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study revealed that, in a sample of healthy workers, material handling FC tests were related to physical factors but not to the psychosocial factors measured in this study. The construct of static work FC tests remained largely unexplained.

Comparison of two methods for interpreting lifting performance during functional capacity evaluation

BACKGROUND

Functional capacity evaluation (FCE) requires determination of effort by observation of effort indexes for performance interpretation. Waddell signs have been shown to be associated with decreased functional performance. Whether determination of effort by observational criteria and Waddell sign testing can be used interchangeably to interpret lifting performance is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to assess the concurrent validity of submaximal effort and Waddell signs and to determine whether these contribute independently to lifting performance.

DESIGN

This investigation was an analytical cross-sectional study.

METHODS

A total of 130 people who had chronic nonspecific low back pain and were referred for fitness-for-work evaluation were included. Physical effort was determined on the basis of observational criteria for lifting from floor to waist, lifting from waist to shoulder, and horizontal lifting during FCE. A second assessor conducted Waddell sign testing. The concurrent validity of Waddell signs and submaximal effort was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to determine the contributions of Waddell signs and submaximal effort to lifting performance. Age and sex were covariates.

RESULTS

The FCE assessor found a low sensitivity of Waddell signs for submaximal effort determination. Between 53% and 63% of the participants who were classified as showing submaximal effort had Waddell signs. Waddell signs and submaximal effort were independent contributors to lifting performance. The contribution of submaximal effort was larger than that of Waddell signs, as shown by 20% to 29% higher explained variance in lifting performance when submaximal effort was added to the model first versus 3% to 6% higher explained variance when Waddell signs were added first.

LIMITATIONS

Assessor variability could have influenced the study results.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with chronic nonspecific low back pain, Waddell sign testing and determination of physical effort by observational criteria should not be used interchangeably to interpret lifting performance during FCE.

What is the role of "nonorganic somatic components" in functional capacity evaluations in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain undergoing fitness for work evaluation?

STUDY DESIGN

Analytical cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of "nonorganic somatic components" together with physical and other psychosocial factors on functional capacity evaluation (FCE) in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) undergoing fitness-for-work evaluation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Functional capacity evaluation is increasingly used for physical fitness-for-work evaluation in patients with chronic NSLBP, but results seem to be influenced by physical as well as psychosocial factors. The influence of nonorganic somatic components together with physical and other psychosocial factors on FCE performance has not yet been investigated.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-six patients with chronic NSLBP referred for physical fitness-for-work evaluation were included. The 4 FCE tests were lifting from floor to waist, forward bend standing, grip strength, and 6-minute walking. Nonorganic somatic components were assessed with the 8 nonorganic somatic signs as defined by Waddell and were adjusted for age, sex, days off work, salary in the previous occupation, pain intensity, fear avoidance belief, and perceived functional ability in multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Between 42% and 58% of the variation in the FCE tests was explained in the final multivariate regression models. Nonorganic somatic components were consistent independent predictors for all tests. Their influence was most important on forward bend standing and walking distance, and less on grip strength and lifting performance. The physical factors of age and/or sex were strongly associated with grip strength and lifting, less with walking distance, and not at all with forward bend standing. The influence of at least 1 other psychosocial factor was observed in all FCE tests, having the highest proportion in the 6-minute walking test.

CONCLUSION

Nonorganic somatic components seem to be consistent independent predictors in FCE testing and should be considered for interpretation of test results.

Factors associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Functional capacity tests are standardized instruments to evaluate patients' capacities to execute work-related activities. Functional capacity test results are associated with biopsychosocial factors, making it unclear what is being measured in capacity testing. An overview of these factors was missing. The objective of this review was to investigate the level of evidence for factors that are associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed identifying relevant studies from an electronic journal databases search. Candidate studies employed a cross-sectional or RCT design and were published between 1980 and October 2010. The quality of these studies was determined and level of evidence was reported for factors that were associated with capacity results in at least 3 studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. The level of evidence was reported for lifting low, lifting high, carrying, and static lifting capacity. Lifting low test results were associated with self-reported disability and specific self-efficacy but not with pain duration. There was conflicting evidence for associations of lifting low with pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, depression, gender and age. Lifting high was associated with gender and specific self-efficacy, but not with pain intensity or age. There is conflicting evidence for the association of lifting high with the factors self-reported disability, pain duration and depression. Carrying was associated with self-reported disability and not with pain intensity and there is conflicting evidence for associations with specific self-efficacy, gender and age. Static lifting was associated with fear of movement/(re)injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Much heterogeneity was observed in investigated capacity tests and candidate associated factors. There was some evidence for biological and psychological factors that are or are not associated with capacity results but there is also much conflicting evidence. High level evidence for social factors was absent.

Health professional's perceptions and practices in relation to functional capacity evaluations: results of a quantitative survey

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated the perceptions and practices of Australian health professionals in relation to the use of functional capacity evaluations (FCE's).

METHODS

A quantitative cross-sectional study design was used to survey health professionals who conduct FCE's and who were working for one of 219 rehabilitation providers in NSW, Australia. Seventy seven returned surveys were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Eleven different FCE's were being utilised with many health professionals using more than one FCE. The most commonly used FCE was non-standardised (56%, n = 43) followed by 52% (n = 40) using the Workhab, and 18% (n = 14) using Valpar. Both non-standardised and standardised assessments were being used by 90% (n = 69) of respondents. Health professionals reported using all or parts of the FCE, and indicated identical FCE's are not always conducted, with adaptation of the FCE, due to client injury (82%, n = 62) and job (80%, n = 43) occurring. About 60% of respondents had no choice in the type of FCE they conducted, and of the 40% with a choice, this was not influenced by other stakeholders in the process. Accreditation and training, characteristics of assessment tasks, standardisation, reliability, cost, length and flexibility were all identified as factors affecting the selection of an FCE.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that health professionals in NSW Australia, are not routinely using standardised tools for FCE's. Health professional perceptions suggest accreditation, training and the characteristics of the FCE were important factors in FCE selection. In practice, participants tended to use parts of an FCE rather than the whole FCE. Adaptation of FCE's was common, due to client injury and specific job requirements.

Value of functional capacity evaluation information in a clinical setting for predicting return to work

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) information in predicting return to work (RTW).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Inpatient rehabilitation clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=220) with chronic musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) conducting a medical rehabilitation.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients filled in questionnaires at admission and 1-year follow-up. An FCE was performed on admission. RTW was defined as a combination of employment at 1-year follow-up with a maximum of 6 weeks sick leave because of MSD in the postrehabilitation year. As predictive FCE information, the physical capacity (Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories 1-5), the number of test results not meeting work demands (0-25), and the tester's recommendation of work ability in the actual job (> or =6h/d) were analyzed. Logistic regression models (crude and adjusted for the concurrent predictors employment, preadmission sick leave, and patient's prognosis of RTW) were created to predict RTW.

RESULTS

Complete data were obtained for 145 patients. The sample showed a non-RTW at 1-year follow-up for 37.9%. All FCE information showed significant relations to RTW (r=.28-.43; P<.05). In the crude as well as in the adjusted regression models, all FCE information predicted RTW, but the models' quality was low. The integration of FCE information led to an increase of 5%. The predictive efficiency was poor. The adjusted model for failed tests showed a substantial improvement compared with the reference model (concurrent predictors only).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant relation between FCE information and RTW with and without concurrent predictors, but the predictive efficiency is poor. Primarily, the number of failed tests seemed to be of significance for patients with ambiguous RTW prognosis. A first proposal for a prediction rule was discussed.

Towards consensus in operational definitions in functional capacity evaluation: a Delphi Survey

INTRODUCTION

The problem of inconsistent terminology in functional capacity evaluation (FCE) has been widely addressed in the international literature. Many different terms seem to be used interchangeably while other terms appear to be interpreted differently. This may seriously hinder FCE research and clinical use. To gain consensus in operational definitions in FCE and conceptual framework to classify terminology used in FCE.

METHODS

A Delphi Survey with FCE experts was conducted which consisted of three rounds of questioning, using semi and full structured questions. The expert group was formed from international experts in FCE. Experts were selected if they met any of the following criteria: at least one international publication as first author and one as co-author in the field of FCE; or an individual who had developed an FCE that was subject of investigation in at least one publication in international literature. Consensus of definitions was considered when 75% or more of all experts agreed with a definition.

RESULTS

In total, 22 international experts from 6 different countries in Australia, Europe and North America, working in different health related sectors, participated in this study.

CONCLUSION

Consensus concerning conceptual framework of FCE was met in 9 out of 20 statements. Consensus on definitions was met in 10 out of 19 definitions. Experts agreed to use the ICF as a conceptual framework in which terminology of FCE should be classified and agreed to use pre-defined terms of the ICF. No consensus was reached about the definition of FCE, for which two potential eligible definitions remained. Consensus was reached in many terms used in FCE. For future research, it was recommended that researchers use these terms, use the ICF as a conceptual framework and clearly state which definition for FCE is used because no definition of FCE was consented.

General and specific self-efficacy reports of patients with chronic low back pain: are they related to performances in a functional capacity evaluation?

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship of general and specific self-efficacy (SE) beliefs with functional capacity evaluation (FCE) performances in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP), while controlling for influence of gender, age, and self-reported pain intensity, self-esteem, disability, psychosocial distress and health status.

METHODS

Included were 92 patients with CLBP referred to an outpatient university based multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program in The Netherlands. All patients underwent an FCE. General SE was measured with the ALCOS questionnaire prior to the FCE, specific SE was measured with a self-constructed standardized question during the FCE. Paired samples t-tests were used to tests differences between predicted and actual performances. Pearson and Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to express the strength of the relationships between SE and performances. Multivariate analyses were used to test the influence of control variables on the relationships between SE (general or specific) and performances.

RESULTS

Performances were consistently higher than patients' self-predictions. Differences between predictions and performances were significant in male lifting low, male carrying, and female carrying. With exception of the association between specific SE and lifting in males (r = 0.55, P < 0.05), all other correlations between general and specific SE and FCE performances were non-significant. Multivariable regression analyses showed that the relative contribution of SE measures over gender was little or none.

CONCLUSIONS

The contribution of specific SE to the prediction of FCE performances is moderate in one instance, and insignificant in most instances (both specific and general SE). Because of the consistency of the differences between prediction (specific SE) and performances, and depending on the level of accuracy needed, future research may deliberate the use of predicted material handling capacities at group level and correct for a systematic underprediction.

Are pain intensity and pain related fear related to functional capacity evaluation performances of patients with chronic low back pain?

INTRODUCTION

Pain related fear and pain intensity have been identified as factors negatively influencing Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) performances in patients with CLBP. Conflicting results have been reported in the literature. The objective of this study was to analyze the relationships between pain intensity and pain-related fear on the one hand, and performances during an FCE on the other hand in two samples of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

Two cross sectional observation studies were performed with two samples of patients with CLBP (study 1: n = 79; study 2: n = 58). Pain related fears were operationally defined as the score on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in study 1, and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) in study 2. Pain intensity was measured with a Numeric Rating Scale in both studies. Avoidance behavior observed during FCE was in both studies operationally defined as the unwillingness to engage in high intensity performance levels of three different functional activities: high intensity lifting, prolonged standing in a forward bend position, and fast repetitive bending at the waist.

RESULTS

A total of 25 correlations between pain and pain related fear, and performance variables were calculated, out of which 7 were significant (p < 0.05). The strength of these significant correlations ranged from r = -0.23 to r = -0.50. Multivariate linear regression analyses revealed non-significant relationships in most instances. Pain and pain related fear contributed little if any to these models.

CONCLUSIONS

The relation between pain and pain related fear and FCE performance is weak or non-existent in patients with CLBP.

A comparison of two lifting assessment approaches in patients with chronic low back pain

The Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE) and the lifting test of the WorkWell Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation (WWS) are well known as lifting performance tests. The objective of this study was to study whether the PILE and the WWS can be used interchangeably in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) and to explore whether psychosocial variables can explain possible differences.

METHODS

53 Patients (32 men and 21 women) with CLBP were tested twice in a counter balanced design. Pearson Correlation Coefficient of r > 0.75 and non-significant differences on two-tailed t tests were considered as good comparability.

RESULTS

Pearson Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (p < 0.01). Lifting performance on the WWS was a mean of 6.0 kg higher compared to the PILE (p < 0.01). The difference between the PILE and the WWS was unrelated to psychological variables.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that the PILE and the WWS cannot be used interchangeably. Psychosocial variables cannot explain the differences between both tests.