Literature DB >> 11944761

Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes--a prospective study.

Donald C Cole1, Michael V Mondloch, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rigorous evidence on factors affecting the prognosis of work-related soft-tissue injuries remains limited. Although shown to be important for a wide variety of clinical conditions, recovery expectations have rarely been assessed as prognostic factors for workers with soft-tissue injuries. We examined the predictive role of various measures of recovery expectations among workers with injuries resulting in time off work.
METHODS: We identified a prospective cohort of 1566 injured workers shortly after they filed a claim for their injury with the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board (OWCB). They had soft-tissue injuries to the back or upper or lower extremities, had new, lost-time claims from May to November 1993 and were still off work at the time of the first interview. We interviewed participants by telephone within 3 weeks after the injury and measured their recovery expectations (perceptions regarding progress, expected change in condition, expected time until return to usual activities and expectations regarding return to usual job) along with other, potentially important prognostic factors. The primary outcome was total time receiving 100% wage-replacement benefits during the year following injury, obtained from OWCB administrative files. Self-reported measures of pain, health-related quality of life and functional status, obtained up to 4 times during the year following injury, were both independent predictors and secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: The 4 measures of recovery expectations together explained one-sixth of the variation in time receiving benefits. All but expectations regarding return to usual job were individually predictive of time receiving benefits. Judging one's recovery as much better than expected resulted in a 30% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9%-46%) faster rate of stopping receiving benefits (and likely returning to work) compared with judging one's recovery as much worse than expected. Similarly, participants who expected to return to usual activities within 3 weeks had a 37% (95% CI 26%-47%) faster rate of stopping receiving benefits than those who responded "Don't know" to this question, and participants who stated that they were fully recovered or would get better soon had a 25% (CI 5%-40%) faster rate than those who thought they would never get or stay better. Positive recovery expectations were also associated with reductions in pain grade and improvement in functional status outcomes.
INTERPRETATION: Expectations regarding recovery may provide useful information on the complex process of recovering from work-related soft-tissue injuries. For clinicians, patients' negative or uncertain expectations may indicate the need for further probing and intervention on psychosocial factors to facilitate recovery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11944761      PMCID: PMC99453     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  16 in total

1.  The effectiveness of an early active intervention program for workers with soft-tissue injuries. The Early Claimant Cohort Study.

Authors:  S J Sinclair; S H Hogg-Johnson; M V Mondloch; S A Shields
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Disability resulting from occupational low back pain. Part II: What do we know about secondary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention after disability begins.

Authors:  J W Frank; A S Brooker; S E DeMaio; M S Kerr; A Maetzel; H S Shannon; T J Sullivan; R W Norman; R P Wells
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  The relative importance of prognostic factors in studies of survival.

Authors:  M Schemper
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Does how you do depend on how you think you'll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients' recovery expectations and health outcomes.

Authors:  M V Mondloch; D C Cole; J W Frank
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-07-24       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part II. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica.

Authors:  S J Atlas; R A Deyo; R B Keller; A M Chapin; D L Patrick; J M Long; D E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Understanding prognosis to improve rehabilitation: the example of lateral elbow pain.

Authors:  P L Hudak; D C Cole; A T Haines
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 3.966

8.  Grading the severity of chronic pain.

Authors:  Michael Von Korff; Johan Ormel; Francis J Keefe; Samuel F Dworkin
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 9.  Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain. New evidence gives new hope--if we can just get all the players onside.

Authors:  J Frank; S Sinclair; S Hogg-Johnson; H Shannon; C Bombardier; D Beaton; D Cole
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-06-16       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Return to work after rehabilitation. The significance of the patient's own prediction.

Authors:  J Sandström; E Esbjörnsson
Journal:  Scand J Rehabil Med       Date:  1986
View more
  72 in total

1.  Early prognostic factors for duration on temporary total benefits in the first year among workers with compensated occupational soft tissue injuries.

Authors:  S Hogg-Johnson; D C Cole
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 2.  Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors.

Authors:  Renée-Louise Franche; Niklas Krause
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2002-12

3.  Functional limitations and well-being in injured municipal workers: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Marion Gillen; Sarah A Jewell; Julia A Faucett; Edward Yelin
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2004-06

4.  Comparing current definitions of return to work: a measurement approach.

Authors:  I A Steenstra; H Lee; E M M de Vroome; J W Busse; S J Hogg-Johnson
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2012-09

5.  Individual expectation: an overlooked, but pertinent, factor in the treatment of individuals experiencing musculoskeletal pain.

Authors:  Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2010-06-30

6.  Predicting return to work after low back injury using the Psychosocial Risk for Occupational Disability Instrument: a validation study.

Authors:  I Z Schultz; J Crook; J Berkowitz; R Milner; G R Meloche
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-09

7.  What do you expect? Catastrophizing mediates associations between expectancies and pain-facilitatory processes.

Authors:  Junie S Carriere; Marc Olivier Martel; Samantha M Meints; Marise C Cornelius; Robert R Edwards
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.931

Review 8.  Prognostic factors for duration of sick leave in patients sick listed with acute low back pain: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  I A Steenstra; J H Verbeek; M W Heymans; P M Bongers
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 9.  Work-related outcome assessment instruments.

Authors:  Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Workplace Social System and Sustained Return-to-Work: A Study of Supervisor and Co-worker Supportiveness and Injury Reaction.

Authors:  Arif Jetha; Anthony D LaMontagne; Rebbecca Lilley; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Malcolm Sim; Peter Smith
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2018-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.