1
|
A general framework for selecting work participation outcomes in intervention studies among persons with health problems: a concept paper. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:2189. [DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14564-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
2
|
Charles A, Mugisha A, Iconaru L, Baleanu F, Benoit F, Surquin M, Bergmann P, Body JJ. Impact of non-hip fractures in elderly women: a narrative review. Climacteric 2021; 25:240-245. [PMID: 34806931 DOI: 10.1080/13697137.2021.1998433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
The association of hip fractures with adverse outcomes is well established, but for non-hip fractures this association still needs to be further investigated. The objective of this narrative review is to describe the state of the art with regards to the health impact of clinically relevant non-hip fracture locations in postmenopausal women. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from January 2010 until December 2020. Studies were included when the crude rates and/or relative risk of 1-year subsequent fractures and/or mortality were reported as well as the precise fracture site. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Regarding mortality rates, there was a high variability between studies, with higher rates for vertebral, proximal humerus and pelvic fractures. There was a small or no impact of wrist, ankle or tibia fractures. The mortality rate increased with age after vertebral, proximal humerus and wrist fractures. Moreover, proximal humerus and vertebral fractures were associated with a higher mortality risk. This narrative review indicates that, besides fractures of the hip, fractures of the vertebrae, proximal humerus or pelvis deserve more attention when trying to prevent adverse outcomes of osteoporosis. More studies on the topic of non-hip fractures are urgently needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Charles
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - A Mugisha
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - L Iconaru
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F Baleanu
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F Benoit
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - M Surquin
- Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - P Bergmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.,Laboratory of Translational Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - J J Body
- Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.,Department of Internal Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.,Laboratory of Translational Medicine, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Richard GJ, Denard PJ, Kaar SG, Bohsali KI, Horneff JG, Carpenter S, Fedorka CJ, Mamelson K, Garrigues GE, Namdari S, Abboud JA, Paxton ES, Kovacevic D, Hebert-Davies J, Ponce BA, King JJ. Outcome measures reported for the management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29:2175-2184. [PMID: 32951643 DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2019] [Revised: 04/01/2020] [Accepted: 04/01/2020] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons multicenter taskforce studying proximal humerus fractures reached no consensus on which outcome measures to include in future studies, and currently no gold standard exists. Knowledge of commonly used outcome measures will allow standardization, enabling more consistent proximal humerus fracture treatment comparison. This study identifies the most commonly reported outcome measures for proximal humerus fracture management in recent literature. METHODS A systematic review identified all English-language articles assessing proximal humerus fractures from 2008 to 2018 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Review articles, meta-analyses, revision surgery, chronic injuries, studies with <15 patients, studies with <12 month follow-up, anatomic/biomechanical studies, and technique articles were excluded. Included studies were assessed for patient demographics and outcome scores, patient satisfaction, complications, range of motion, and strength. RESULTS Of 655 articles, 74 met inclusion criteria. The number of proximal humerus fractures averaged 74.2 per study (mean patient age, 65.6 years). Mean follow-up was 30.7 months. Neer type 1, 2, 3, and 4 fractures were included in 8%, 51%, 81%, and 88% of studies, respectively. Twenty-two patient-reported outcome instruments were used including the Constant-Murley score (65%), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (31%), visual analog scale pain (27%), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (18%). An average of 2.2 measures per study were reported. CONCLUSION Considerable variability exists in the use of outcome measures across the proximal humerus fracture literature, making treatment comparison challenging. We recommend that future literature on proximal humerus fractures use at least 3 outcomes measures and 1 general health score until the optimal scores are determined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George J Richard
- Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | | | - Scott G Kaar
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Kamal I Bohsali
- Jacksonville Orthopaedic Institute-Beaches Division, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - J Gabriel Horneff
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Shannon Carpenter
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dwight D. Eisenhower VAMC, Leavenworth, KS, USA
| | - Catherine J Fedorka
- Cooper Bone and Joint Institute, Cooper Medical School at Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA
| | - Kelly Mamelson
- Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA
| | - Grant E Garrigues
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Surena Namdari
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Joseph A Abboud
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - E Scott Paxton
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, East Providence, RI, USA
| | - David Kovacevic
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jonah Hebert-Davies
- Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Brent A Ponce
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Joseph J King
- Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|