[en] BACKGROUND: Increasing rates of long-term sickness absence are a worldwide problem. Belgium is the first country in Europe that aims to screen its entire population of sick leavers (sick leave > 6 weeks) for the risk of long-term sickness absence in order to focus resources on the high-risk group and to provide adequate return-to-work support. Our aim was to investigate content and face validity of a newly designed questionnaire (Quickscan) using item prioritization of patients and professionals in the field of long-term sickness absence. This questionnaire was developed based on a review of the literature and existing instruments (Goorts et al, J Public Health Res 7:1419, 2018). METHODS: Qualitative data were collected using the nominal group technique. The data were gathered exploring factors that influence return-to work restrictions or opportunities. RESULTS: Participants indicated 20 out of 21 of the questionnaire factors as important reasons that might influence the return-to-work process. Additionally, 16 factors were discussed that were not yet included in the Quickscan but that might provide useful information on return-to-work issues, according to the participants. In the prioritization of items, we found considerable diversity among participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the validity of the Quickscan items to ask patients about important return-to-work barriers or opportunities. However, additional factors were identified that may improve the assessment of risk for long-term sickness absence.
Disciplines :
Public health, health care sciences & services
Author, co-author :
Goorts, Kaat
Vanovenberghe, Charlotte
Lambreghts, Charlotte
Bruneel, Eline
Rusu, Dorina ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Médecine du travail et environnementale
Du Bois, Marc
Vandenbroeck, Sofie
Godderis, Lode
Language :
English
Title :
Assessment of long-term sickness absence: content and face validity of a new questionnaire based on qualitative data from nominal groups.
Edwards P, Greasley K. Absence from work. In: Conditions EFftiolaw. Dublin: Eurofound; 2010.
Kausto J, Pentti J, Oksanen T, Virta LJ, Virtanen M, Kivimaki M, et al. Length of sickness absence and sustained return-to-work in mental disorders and musculoskeletal diseases: A cohort study of public sector employees. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(4):358-66. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3643 Epub 2017/05/04. PubMed PMID: 28463382.
de Wind A, Donceel P, Dekkers S, Godderis L. The role of European physicians in the assessment of work disability: A comparative study. Edorium J Disabil Rehabil. 2016;2:78-87.
Beemsterboer W, Stewart R, Groothoff J, Nijhuis F. A literature review on sick leave determinants (1984-2004). Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2009;22(2):169-79. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10001-009-0013-8 PubMed PMID: 19617195.
Dekkers-Sanchez PM, Hoving JL, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Factors associated with long-term sick leave in sick-listed employees: A systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(3):153-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.034983 PubMed PMID: 17881466.
Mairiaux P, Somville P-R. Incapacité de travail prolongeé. Revue des facteurs de risque professionnels et des stratégies d'intervention. Archives des maladies professionnelles et de l'environnement. 2015;76(5):458-67.
Mairiaux P, Schippers N, Kéfer F, Cornélis S, Donceel P, Somwille P-R. Werkhervatting na een langdurige afwezigheid; 2012.
Goorts K, Duchesnes C, Vandenbroeck S, Rusu D, Bois MD, Mairiaux P, et al. Is langdurig ziekteverzuim voorspelbaar en meetbaar? TBV-Tijdschrift voor Bedrijfs-en Verzekeringsgeneeskunde. 2017;25(2):59-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12498-017-0023-6.
Goorts K, Vandenbroeck S, Rusu D, Du Bois M, Godderis L. Screening for the risk on long-term sickness absence. J Public health Res. 2018;7(2):1419. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2018.1419.
Goorts K, Vandenbroeck S, Vander Elst T, Rusu D, Du Bois M, Godderis L. Quickscan assesses risk of long-term sickness absence: A cross-sectional validation study. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61(2):e43-50. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001512 Epub 2018/12/06. PubMed PMID: 30516552.
Haynes SN, Richard D, Kubany ES. Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):238.
Vogt DS, King DW, King LA. Focus groups in psychological assessment: Enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychol Assess. 2004;16(3):231.
Sanderson T, Hewlett S, Richards P, Morris M, Calnan M. Utilizing qualitative data from nominal groups: Exploring the influences on treatment outcome prioritization with rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Health Psychol. 2012;17(1):132-42.
Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015;22(4):195.
Bradley EH, Curry LA, KJJHsr D. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758-72.
Marhold C, Linton SJ, Melin L. Identification of obstacles for chronic pain patients to return to work: Evaluation of a questionnaire. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(2):65-75 PubMed PMID: 12014227.
Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, et al. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: Best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Ther. 2016;24(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-016-0113-z PubMed PMID: 27610218; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5015229.
Pransky G, Shaw W, Franche RL, Clarke A. Disability prevention and communication among workers, physicians, employers, and insurers-current models and opportunities for improvement. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(11):625-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280410001672517 Epub 2004/06/19. PubMed PMID: 15204500.
Deci EL, Olafsen AH, RM R, Behavior O. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2017;4:19-43.