Objective. Work disability is a major consequence of inflammatory rheumatic conditions. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions aimed at the prevention or reduction of work disability in rheumatic diseases is limited. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary job-retention vocational rehabilitation (VR) program in patients with a rheumatic condition who were at risk for job loss. Methods. A total of 140 patients with a chronic rheumatic condition were randomly assigned to either a multidisciplinary job-retention VR program (n ‫؍‬ 74) or usual outpatient care (UC) (n ‫؍‬ 66). Patients in the VR group were assessed and guided by a multidisciplinary team, whereas patients in the UC group received care as initiated by their rheumatologist, supplemented with written information. The main outcome measure was the occurrence of job loss (complete work disability or unemployment); additional outcome measures included job satisfaction, pain, functional status, emotional status, and quality of life. Results. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding the proportion of patients having lost their job at any time point, with 24% and 23% of the patients in the VR and UC groups, respectively, having lost their job after 24 months. Over the total period of 24 months, patients in the VR group had a significantly greater improvement of the fatigue visual analog scale and of emotional status (all P values < 0.05). Conclusion. A job-retention VR program did not reduce the risk of job loss but improved fatigue and mental health in patients with chronic rheumatic diseases at risk for job loss.

We studied the occurrence of sick leave and work disability, the presence of workplace adaptations and the usage of professional guidance related to working problems in patients with early arthritis. Inclusion criteria were arthritis symptoms of less than 2 years duration and a paid job at the time of diagnosis. Assessments were done in connection with an early arthritis clinic (EAC) at entry into the cohort and 12 months thereafter by means of a questionnaire comprising questions on sick leave (absenteeism from work reported to the employer), work disability (receiving a full or partial work disability pension), unemployment, work adaptations and professional guidance related to working problems. Fifty-seven of the 69 participants (83%) had an arthritis symptom duration of <6 months. The number of patients with sick leave due to arthritis in the past 12 months decreased from 28 (41%) at study entry to 18 (26%) after 12 months of follow-up. The number of patients receiving a work disability pension increased from 5 (7%) at study entry to 13 (19%) after 12 months of follow-up (10 partial and 3 full). Sick leave in the 12 months before study entry appeared to be the most important predictor of the institution or increase in a work disability pension (odds ratio, 16.1; 95%CI, 1.8-142.8). Between study entry and follow-up, the number of patients with workplace adaptations increased from 20 (29%) to 28 (42%), whereas the number of patients receiving vocational guidance decreased from 48 (70%) to 36 (52%). In patients with early arthritis and a paid job, arthritis-related sick leave was common and occurred in part before patients entered the EAC and a diagnosis was made. About 20% of the patients became permanently work disabled, with partial work disability being more common than full work disability. Considerable proportions of patients received workplace adaptations and professional guidance with working problems.

ObjectivesTo validate and optimize a referral rule to identify primary care patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) suspected for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).DesignCross-sectional study with data from 19 Dutch primary care practices for development and 38 for validation.ParticipantsPrimary care patients aged 18-45 years with CLBP existing more than three months and onset of back pain started before the age of 45 years.Main OutcomeThe number of axSpA patients according to the ASAS criteria.MethodsThe referral rule (CaFaSpA referral rule) was developed using 364 CLBP patients from 19 primary care practices and contains four easy to use variables; inflammatory back pain, good response to nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drugs, family history of spondyloarthritis and a back pain duration longer than five years. This referral rule is positive when at least two variables are present. Validation of the CaFaSpA rule was accomplished in 579 primary care CLBP patients from 38 practices from other areas. Performance of the referral rule was assessed by c-statistic and calibration plot. To fit the final referral rule the development and validation datasets were pooled leading to a total study population of 943 primary care participants.ResultsThe referral rule was validated in 579 patients (41% male, mean age 36 (sd7.0). The percentage of identified axSpA patients was 16% (n=95). External validation resulted in satisfactory calibration and reasonable discriminative ability (c-statistics 0.70 [95% CI, 0.64-0.75]). In the pooled dataset sensitivity and specificity of the referral rule were 75% and 58%.ConclusionsThe CaFaSpA referral rule for axSpA consists of four easy to use predictors for primary care physicians and has a good predictive value in this validation study. The referral rule has the potential to be a screening tool for primary care by identifying CLBP patients suspected for axSpA.

Background: Rheumatic diseases are a major cause of permanent work disability. In the process of occupational rehabilitation several health professionals may have a role. Objective: To assess the quality and quantity of communication and cooperation between Dutch rheumatologists and occupational physicians. Methods: A postal survey among 187 Dutch rheumatologists. Results: 153/187 rheumatologists (82%) returned the questionnaire. They considered reducing pain and fatigue to be their major responsibility in the process of occupational rehabilitation, followed by improving work participation (68/153 (44%)) and quality of work (55/153 (36%)). Although 112/153 (73%) of the rheumatologists judged the communication and cooperation with occupational physicians as reasonable to good, 119/153 (78%) of them were willing to improve the collaboration. Perceived bottlenecks mentioned were a lack of clarity about the occupational physician's position and activities, and the absence of practice guidelines. The most important prerequisites for improvement were found to be guarantees about the occupational physician's professional independence and more clarity about the competence of the occupational physicians and how they used the information provided. Conclusion: Dutch rheumatologists are willing to improve cooperation and communication with occupational physicians. The perceived lack of clarity about their mutual tasks appears to be a major obstacle. Thus the development of a joint education programme and a guideline for occupational rehabilitation in rheumatic diseases may be appropriate first steps towards improvement.

No abstract