IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0307284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic review and tools appraisal of prognostic factors of return to work in workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal and common mental disorders

Author

Listed:
  • Patrizia Villotti
  • Ann-Christin Kordsmeyer
  • Jean-Sébastien Roy
  • Marc Corbière
  • Alessia Negrini
  • Christian Larivière

Abstract

With the overall objective of providing implication for clinical and research practices regarding the identification and measurement of modifiable predicting factors for return to work (RTW) in people with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and common mental disorders (CMDs), this study 1) systematically examined and synthetized the research evidence available in the literature on the topic, and 2) critically evaluated the tools used to measure each identified factor. A systematic search of prognostic studies was conducted, considering four groups of keywords: 1) population (i.e., MSDs or CMDs), 2) study design (prospective), 3) modifiable factors, 4) outcomes of interest (i.e., RTW). Studies showing high risk of bias were eliminated. Tools used to measure prognostic factors were assessed using psychometric and usability criteria. From the 78 studies that met inclusion criteria, 19 (for MSDs) and 5 (for CMDs) factors reaching moderate or strong evidence were extracted. These factors included work accommodations, RTW expectations, job demands (physical), job demands (psychological), job strain, work ability, RTW self-efficacy, expectations of recovery, locus of control, referred pain (back pain), activities as assessed with disability questionnaires, pain catastrophizing, coping strategies, fears, illness behaviours, mental vitality, a positive health change, sleep quality, and participation. Measurement tools ranged from single-item tools to multi-item standardized questionnaires or subscales. The former generally showed low psychometric properties but excellent usability, whereas the later showed good to excellent psychometric properties and variable usability. The rigorous approach to the selection of eligible studies allowed the identification of a relatively small set of prognostic factors, but with a higher level of certainty. For each factor, the present tool assessment allows an informed choice to balance psychometric and usability criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrizia Villotti & Ann-Christin Kordsmeyer & Jean-Sébastien Roy & Marc Corbière & Alessia Negrini & Christian Larivière, 2024. "Systematic review and tools appraisal of prognostic factors of return to work in workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal and common mental disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(7), pages 1-28, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307284
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307284
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307284&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0307284?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    1) population (i.e.; msds or cmds); 2) study design (prospective); 3) modifiable factors; 4) outcomes of interest (i.e.; rtw). studies showing high risk of bias were eliminated. tools used to measure prognostic factors were assessed using psychometric and usability criteria. from the 78 studies that met inclusion criteria; 19 (for msds) and 5 (for cmds) factors reaching moderate or strong evidence were extracted. these factors included work accommodations; rtw expectations; job demands (physical); job demands (psychological); job strain; work ability; rtw self-efficacy; expectations of recovery; locus of control; referred pain (back pain); activities as assessed with disability questionnaires; pain catastrophizing; coping strategies; fears; illness behaviours; mental vitality; a positive health change; sleep quality; and participation. measurement tools ranged from single-item tools to multi-item standardized questionnaires or subscales. the former generally showed low psychometric properties but excellent usability; whereas the later showed good to excellent psychometric properties and variable usability. the rigorous approach to the selection of eligible studies allowed the identification of a relatively small set of prognostic factors; but with a higher level of certainty. for each factor; the present tool assessment allows an informed choice to balance psychometric and usability criteria.;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.