» Articles » PMID: 36435773

A General Framework for Selecting Work Participation Outcomes in Intervention Studies Among Persons with Health Problems: a Concept Paper

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2022 Nov 26
PMID 36435773
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Work participation is important for health and can be considered as engagement in a major area of life which is of significance for most people, but it can also be thought of as fulfilling or discharging a role. Currently, academic research lacks a comprehensive classification of work participation outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning is the foremost model in defining work functioning and its counterpart work disability, but it does not provide a critical (core) set of outcomes. Standardizing the definitions and nomenclature used in the research of work participation would ensure that the outcomes of studies are comparable, and practitioners and guideline developers can better decide what works best. As work participation is a broad umbrella term including outcome categories which need unambiguous differentiation, a framework needs to be developed first.

Aim: To propose a framework which can be used to develop a generic core outcome set for work participation.

Methods: First, we performed a systematic literature search on the concept of (work) participation, views on how to measure it, and on existing classifications for outcome measurements. Next, we derived criteria for the framework and proposed a framework based on the criteria. Last, we applied the framework to six case studies as a proof of concept.

Results: Our literature search provided 2106 hits and we selected 59 studies for full-text analysis. Based on the literature and the developed criteria we propose four overarching outcome categories: (1) initiating employment, (2) having employment, (3) increasing or maintaining productivity at work, and (4) return to employment. These categories appeared feasible in our proof-of-concept assessment with six different case studies.

Conclusion: We propose to use the framework for work participation outcomes to develop a core outcome set for intervention studies to improve work participation.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of clinical healthcare interventions for enhancing the work participation of patients with various health conditions: a synthesis of systematic reviews.

Kluit L, Hoving J, Jamaludin F, van Bennekom C, Beumer A, de Boer A BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2):e094201.

PMID: 39979058 PMC: 11843017. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094201.


Using peer narrative support to promote return to work for cancer survivors: a protocol study of action research.

Que W, Hu X, Wu T, Zhang H, Shi Y, Zhao J Arch Public Health. 2025; 83(1):21.

PMID: 39849658 PMC: 11755956. DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01498-9.


Development of a standard set of key work-related outcomes for use in practice for patients with cardiovascular disease: a modified Delphi study.

Hagendijk M, Zipfel N, Hoving J, Melles M, van der Wees P, van der Burg-Vermeulen S J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024; 8(1):147.

PMID: 39692809 PMC: 11655757. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-024-00825-6.


Effects of work-directed interventions on return-to-work in people on sick-leave for to common mental disorders-a systematic review.

Bramberg E, Ahsberg E, Fahlstrom G, Furberg E, Gornitzki C, Ringborg A Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2024; 97(6):597-619.

PMID: 38710801 PMC: 11245426. DOI: 10.1007/s00420-024-02068-w.


Which outcomes should always be measured in intervention studies for improving work participation for people with a health problem? An international multistakeholder Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for Work participation (COS for Work).

Ravinskaya M, Verbeek J, Langendam M, Madan I, Verstappen S, Kunz R BMJ Open. 2023; 13(2):e069174.

PMID: 36792339 PMC: 9933745. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069174.

References
1.
Anner J, Schwegler U, Kunz R, Trezzini B, Boer W . Evaluation of work disability and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: what to expect and what not. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12:470. PMC: 3432619. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-470. View

2.
Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Chandler J, Welch V, Higgins J . Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10:ED000142. PMC: 10284251. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142. View

3.
Leyshon R, Shaw L . Using multiple stakeholders to define a successful return to work: a concept mapping approach. Work. 2012; 41(4):397-408. DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1317. View

4.
Thulesius H, Grahn B . Reincentivizing--a new theory of work and work absence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007; 7:100. PMC: 1950498. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-100. View

5.
Husabo E, Monstad K, Holmas T, Oyeflaten I, L Werner E, Maeland S . Protocol for the effect evaluation of independent medical evaluation after six months sick leave: a randomized controlled trial of independent medical evaluation versus treatment as usual in Norway. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):573. PMC: 5471703. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4469-3. View