Extensive variability of work participation outcomes measured in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Ravinskaya, Margarita; Verbeek, Jos; Langendam, Miranda; Daams, Joost G.; Hulshof, Carel; Madan, Ira; Verstappen, Suzanne; Hagendijk, Marije; Kunz, Regina; Hoving, Jan L.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.013

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We identified RCT authors (short ‘authors’) and Cochrane systematic reviewers (short ‘reviewers’) in two ways. The RCT authors were identified based on trials reporting paid work participation through searches in Medline, Embase, PsycINFo and Cochrane Central between 01/01/2014 and 21/05/2019, as part of a systematic review [ 5 ]. From the 436 trials identified we included all RCTs that included vocational interventions aiming to directly improve work participation (n = 71).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We identified which topics should be included in the survey based on our systematic review on heterogeneity of work participation outcome measurements [ 5 ] and iterative discussions with our research team. First, we grouped the outcomes of this review into four main outcome categories based on a study by Verstappen et al [ 7 ]; “employment status, “absence from work”, “at-work productivity loss” and “employability” (see definitions of the four categories in Online Appendices 1 and 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a first step in the development of COS for Work we performed a systematic review and showed the variety of work participation outcomes currently used in trials [ 5 ]. We showed that publications from trial authors report little or no rationale to justify specific outcomes or measurement instruments over another, including supporting information to use specific questionnaires or specific time points.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Net days are hereafter referred to as 'days.' Moreover, an extensive variety of measures of SA and DP or other work participation outcomes exist in the literature 38,39 . In this study, we used the total number of days, mean and median of SA or DP days, and the proportion (%) of people with different amounts of SA or DP days at Y −1 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, an extensive variety of measures of SA and DP or other work participation outcomes exist in the literature. 38,39 In this study, we used the total number of days, mean and median of SA or DP days, and the proportion (%) of people with different amounts of SA or DP days at Y −1 . Additionally, for every calendar year, we calculated the total amount of SA or DP days (with a threshold of 180 days), as well as the proportion of people reaching over this threshold, respectively.…”

Section: Sickness Absence and Disability Pension Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐employment, sickness absence, and disability pension in multiple sclerosis

Machado

Murley

Hillert

et al. 2022

Acta Neuro Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Early withdrawal from work is common among people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). However, little is known about how this is influenced by the type of employment. The aims were to explore the distributions of self‐employed and other types of employment (employed or no earnings from work) before and after MS diagnosis and its associations with sickness absence (SA) and disability pension (DP) among PwMS and matched references without MS. Materials & Method A 6‐year longitudinal cohort study of 2779 individuals diagnosed with MS in 2008–2012 when aged 20–59 and of 13,863 matched individuals without MS from Sweden's population was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) of >180 SA and/or DP days/year were compared by employment status among PwMS and references using Cox proportional hazard models with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Most had no SA or DP. Nevertheless, PwMS had higher SA and DP levels compared with references. PwMS had a higher likelihood to reach >180 days of SA (HR = 4.89, 95% CI = 4.43–5.40) or days of DP (HR = 6.31, 95% CI = 5.46–7.30), irrespective of the employment status. Self‐employed references had less likelihood for >180 SA days than employed references. However, self‐employed and employed PwMS had a similar likelihood for >180 SA days. Transitions of employees to self‐employment were infrequent among PwMS (1.7%) and references (2.6%). Conclusions PwMS transit to SA and DP to a higher extent than references. In contrast to individuals without MS, self‐employed PwMS had similar SA levels to employed PwMS. Switching to self‐employment was not a predominant choice for people recently diagnosed with MS.

show abstract