Updating the Evidence on Functional Capacity Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review

Baets, Stijn De; Calders, Patrick; Schalley, Noortje; Vermeulen, Katrien; Vertriest, Sofie; Peteghem, Lien Van; Coussens, Marieke; Malfait, Fransiska; Vanderstraeten, Guy; Hove, Geert Van; Velde, Dominique Van de

doi:10.1007/s10926-017-9734-x

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meanwhile, 25 systematic reviews ( Wales, Clemson, Lannin & Cameron, 2016) used standardised quality checklists such as the COS-MIN and Terwee's Checklist to evaluate the quality of the psychometric reporting. Fifteen reviews (Bartula & Sherman, 2013;de Baets et al, 2017;Gouttebarge, Wind, Kuijer & Frings-Dresen, 2004;Harvey, Robin, Morris, Graham & Baker, 2008;Holden, Jones, Baker, Boersma & Kluger, 2016;Innes, 2006;Innes & Straker, 1999a,b;Lewandowski, Toliver-Sokol & Palermo, 2011;Lotzin et al, 2015;Monod et al, 2011;Peer & Tenhula, 2010;Swinkels, Dijkstra & Bouter, 2005;Tse, Douglas, Lentin & Carey, 2013;Williams et al, 2007) used a non-standardised checklist (i.e. researcher-developed or adapted), and the remaining 18 just descriptively reported the psychometric evidence gathered.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of reviews of standardised occupation‐based instruments for use in occupational therapy practice

Romli

Yunus

Mackenzie

2019

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Using standardised instruments is one approach to support evidence-based practice. Referring to systematic reviews is an option to identify suitable instruments. However, with an abundance of systematic reviews available, therapists are challenged to identify an appropriate instrument to use. Therefore, this overview of reviews aimed to summarise relevant systematic review findings about standardised occupation-based instruments relevant for occupational therapy practice. Methods: An overview of reviews was conducted. A systematic search was performed on four databases up to March 2018. Included systematic reviews were analysed for quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Results: A total of 2187 articles were identified after removing duplicates. Ultimately, 58 systematic reviews were identified that yielded 641 instruments. From those, 45 instruments were selected for appraisal as they met the inclusion criteria of being developed mainly by occupational therapists and were recommended in the summarised findings from the systematic reviews. The instruments were classified according to the following occupation domains: (i) multidimensional, (ii) activities of daily living, (iii) productivity, (iv) social, (v) sleep/rest, (vi) sexuality and (vii) spirituality. No systematic review was identified that specifically focussed on occupations related to school/education, leisure and play. Discussion: Certain occupation domains such as activities of daily living, social and sleep/rest received high attention amongst researchers. There is a need for systematic reviews of instruments to measure education/school, play and leisure. Limited numbers of instruments were developed by occupational therapists outside the occupation domain of activities of daily living, and in areas of practice other than children and older people. Nevertheless, this overview can give some guidance for occupational therapists in selecting a suitable occupational therapy instrument for practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of reviews of standardised occupation‐based instruments for use in occupational therapy practice

Romli

Yunus

Mackenzie

2019

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lifting capacity was measured with a floor-to-waist lift capacity test based on the Work-Well Functional Capacity Evaluation protocol 22. The lift test has high test–retest (one-way random intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.81) and inter-rater reliability (CR-10 ratings ICC=0.76) in patients with CLBP 27 28. Assessors trained in the test procedure provided standardised instructions to repetitively lift a crate with weights from a shelf at waist height to the floor and back.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximal aerobic capacity is associated with lifting capacity, but not with self-reported functioning measures in patients with primary chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional study

Vermue

Dol

Echeita

et al. 2022

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveMaximal exercise testing is considered the gold standard to assess V̇O2max. However, maximal exercise testing was previously deemed unfeasible and unsafe in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. Consequently, most previous studies on aerobic capacity and functioning in patients with CLBP were performed with submaximal testing protocols. A recent study demonstrated the safety, feasibility and tolerance of maximal exercise testing in patients with CLBP. Therefore, the relation between aerobic capacity and functioning should be reevaluated. This cross-sectional study aims to determine the relationship between maximal aerobic capacity and four measures of functioning: lifting capacity, work ability, pain-related disability and physical functioning in patients with CLBP.MethodsThe maximal aerobic capacity of patients with CLBP was assessed with a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test. Functioning was measured with a floor-to-waist lifting capacity test and three questionnaires: Work Ability Score, Pain Disability Index and Physical Functioning subscale of RAND-36. The associations between maximal aerobic capacity and each of the functioning measures were analysed with multiple linear regression analyses while controlling for potential confounders.ResultsData of n=74 patients with CLBP were analysed. After controlling for potential confounders, maximal aerobic capacity was moderately associated with lifting capacity (β=0.32, p=0.006), but not with any of the other functioning measures (β=−0.08 to 0.12, p>0.288).ConclusionA higher level of maximal aerobic capacity is moderately associated with a higher lifting capacity, but not with self-reported work ability, pain-related disability and physical functioning.

show abstract

“…Clinicians typically use the WorkWell Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) within the WCB-Alberta jurisdiction [ 19 ]. This is a performance-based functional assessment protocol that is conducted as either a basic (1-day) assessment or a more comprehensive (2-day) protocol.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Descriptive Study of the Implementation of Remote Occupational Rehabilitation Services Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic Within a Workers’ Compensation Context

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in dramatic changes to avoid virus spread. In Canada, following provincial legislation the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta (WCB-Alberta) stopped in-person rehabilitation services on March 23, 2020. On April 1, training began on remote service delivery using videoconferencing or telerehabilitation, which started April 3. We studied WCB-Alberta’s transition to remote rehabilitation service delivery. Methods A population-based descriptive study was conducted, with data extracted from the WCB-Alberta database. This included clinical data from rehabilitation providers. We included workers completing services between January 1 and May 31, 2020. We statistically examined differences before and after the transition to remote services. Results The dataset included 4,516 individuals with work-related injuries. The mean number of work assessments per week pre-COVID was 244.6 (SD 83.5), which reduced to 135.9 (SD 74.5). Workers undergoing remote assessments were significantly more likely to work in health care or trades, did not require an interpreter, and were less likely to be working or judged as ready to return to work. Number of completed rehabilitation programs also reduced from 125.6 to 40.8 per week, with most (67.1%) remote programs being functional restoration. Few adverse effects were observed. Conclusions We describe the transition to completely remote delivery of occupational rehabilitation due to COVID-19 physical distancing restrictions in one Canadian compensation jurisdiction. It appears the use of remote services was successful but proceeded cautiously, with fewer complex cases being referred for assessment or rehabilitation. Further research examining longer-term work outcomes and stakeholder perceptions is needed.

show abstract

Updating the Evidence on Functional Capacity Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review

Cited by 26 publications

References 38 publications

Overview of reviews of standardised occupation‐based instruments for use in occupational therapy practice

Overview of reviews of standardised occupation‐based instruments for use in occupational therapy practice

Maximal aerobic capacity is associated with lifting capacity, but not with self-reported functioning measures in patients with primary chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional study

A Descriptive Study of the Implementation of Remote Occupational Rehabilitation Services Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic Within a Workers’ Compensation Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About