Content Analysis of Work Limitation, Stanford Presenteeism, and Work Instability Questionnaires Using International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health and Item Perspective Framework
Background. Presenteeism refers to reduced performance or productivity while at work due to health reasons. WLQ-26, SPS-6, and RA-WIS are the commonly used self-report presenteeism questionnaires. These questionnaires have acceptable psychometric properties but have not been subject to structured content analysis that would define their conceptual basis. Objective. To describe the conceptual basis of the three questionnaires using ICF and IPF and then compare the distribution and content of codes to those on the vocational rehabilitation core set. Methods. Two researchers independently linked the items of the WLQ-26, SPS-6, and RA-WIS to the ICF and IPF following the established linking rules. The percentage agreement on coding was calculated between the researchers. Results. WLQ-26 was linked to 62 ICF codes, SPS-6 was linked to 17 ICF codes, and RA-WIS was linked to 74 ICF codes. Most of these codes belonged to the activity and participation domains. All the concepts were classified by the IPF, and the most were rational appraisals within the social domain. Only 12% of codes of the core set for vocational rehabilitation were used in this study to code these questionnaires. Conclusion. The specific nature of work disability that was included in these three questionnaires was difficult to explain using ICF since many aspects of content were not confined. The core set for vocational rehabilitation covered very limited content of the WLQ-26, SPS-6, and RA-WIS. 1. Introduction Rehabilitation is based on an understanding that health and function extend beyond the presence or absence of disease to include the ability to participate in life activities and roles. Similarly, we now recognize that work functioning extends beyond the presence or absence of being at work to include the ability to engage in work activities and roles. Presenteeism refers to reduced performance or productivity while at work due to health reasons [1]. In a study conducted in Sweden where one-third of the surveyed labor force reported going to work two or more times in the past year in spite of their health being so bad that they should have taken leave [2]. Presenteeism is a complex issue that is affected by individual, work, workplace factors, health, and health behaviours. Previous studies have tried to identify determinants of presenteeism and have identified factors like low monthly income, psychological stress, initial health, time pressure, and finding a replacement, amongst others [1–8]. During rehabilitation, ability to return to work is often a major concern. Vocational
References
[1]
M. Boles, B. Pelletier, and W. Lynch, “The relationship between health risks and work productivity,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 737–745, 2004.
[2]
G. Aronsson, K. Gustafsson, and M. Dallner, “Sick but yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 502–509, 2000.
[3]
G. Aronsson and K. Gustafsson, “Sickness presenteeism: prevalence, attendance-pressure factors, and an outline of a model for research,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 958–966, 2005.
[4]
F. Cocker, A. Martin, J. Scott, A. Venn, P. Otahal, and K. Sanderson, “Factors associated with presenteeism among employed Australian adults reporting lifetime major depression with 12-month symptoms,” Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 135, no. 1–3, pp. 231–240, 2011.
[5]
T. Heponiemi, M. Elovainio, J. Pentti et al., “Association of contractual and subjective job insecurity with sickness presenteeism among public sector employees,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 830–835, 2010.
[6]
N. Despiegel, N. Danchenko, C. Francois, B. Lensberg, and M. F. Drummond, “The use and performance of productivity scales to evaluate presenteeism in mood disorders,” Value Health, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1148–1161, 2012.
[7]
D. M. Lack, “Presenteeism revisited a comprehensive review,” AAOHN Journal, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 77–91, 2011.
[8]
G. Jourdain and M. Vezina, “How psychological stress in the workplace influences presenteeism propensity: a test of the demand control support model,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2013.
[9]
W. F. Stewart, J. A. Ricci, E. Chee, S. R. Hahn, and D. Morganstein, “Cost of lost productive work time among us workers with depression,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 289, no. 23, pp. 3135–3144, 2003.
[10]
A. A. Cox, K. M. Ness, and R. F. Carlson, “International perspectives on depression in the workplace [Internet],” 2000, http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas10/Article_04.pdf.
[11]
D. Lerner, B. C. Amick III, W. H. Rogers, S. Malspeis, K. Bungay, and D. Cynn, “The work limitations questionnaire,” Medical Care, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 72–85, 2001.
[12]
C. Koopman, K. R. Pelletier, J. F. Murray et al., “Stanford Presenteeism Scale: health status and employee productivity,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 2002.
[13]
G. Gilworth, M. A. Chamberlain, A. Harvey et al., “Development of a work instability scale for rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 349–354, 2003.
[14]
J.-S. Roy, F. Desmeules, and J. C. MacDermid, “Psychometric properties of presenteeism scales for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 2011.
[15]
“Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF [Internet],” 2002, http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf.
[16]
A. Cieza, S. Geyh, S. Chatterji, N. Kostanjsek, B. üstün, and G. Stucki, “ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 212–218, 2005.
[17]
World Health Organization, “ICF core sets for vocational rehabilitation [Internet],” 2003, http://www.icf-research-branch.org/icf-core-sets-projects-sp-1641024398/diverse-situations/icf-core-sets-for-vocational-rehabilitation.
[18]
T. A. Stamm, A. Cieza, K. P. Machold, J. S. Smolen, and G. Stucki, “Content comparison of occupation-based instruments in adult rheumatology and musculoskeletal rehabilitation based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 917–924, 2004.
[19]
A. Cieza, T. Brockow, T. Ewert et al., “Linking health-status measurements to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 205–210, 2002.
[20]
D. Rosa, “Content validation of patient-rated outcomes using the item perspective framework. user guide v2. 0. [Internet],” 2012, https://sites.google.com/site/ipcframework/course-materials.
[21]
R. M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, HarperPerennial, 2005.
[22]
“An introduction to robert pirsig's metaphysics of quality [Internet],” 2005, http://www.robertpirsig.org/Intro.htm.
[23]
N. Fayed and K. Elizabeth, “Comparing quality of life scales in childhood epilepsy: what’s in the measures,” Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1–11, 2009.
[24]
A. Cieza and G. Stucki, “Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF),” Quality of Life Research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1225–1237, 2005.
[25]
W. N. Burton, C.-Y. Chen, D. J. Conti, G. Pransky, and D. W. Edington, “Caregiving for III dependents and its association with employee health risks and productivity,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1048–1056, 2004.
[26]
S. H. Allaire, “Measures of adult work disability: the work limitations questionnaire (WLQ) and the rheumatoid arthritis work instability scale (RA-WIS),” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 49, pp. S85–S89, 2003.
[27]
D. Lerner, J. I. Reed, E. Massarotti et al., “The Work Limitations Questionnaire's validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 197–208, 2002.
[28]
D. E. Beaton, K. Tang, M. A. M. Gignac et al., “Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 28–37, 2010.
[29]
K. Tang, D. E. Beaton, M. A. M. Gignac, and C. Bombardier, “Rasch analysis informed modifications to the Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis for use in work-related upper limb disorders,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 1242–1251, 2011.
[30]
K. Tang, D. E. Beaton, M. A. M. Gignac et al., “The Work Instability Scale for rheumatoid arthritis predicts arthritis-related work transitions within 12 months,” Arthritis Care & Research, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 1578–1587, 2010.
[31]
K. Tang, D. E. Beaton, D. Lacaille et al., “The Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS): does it work in osteoarthritis?” Quality of Life Research, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1057–1068, 2010.
[32]
K. Grayson and R. Rust, “Interrater Reliability,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 10, no. 1-2, pp. 71–73, 2001.