OBJECTIVE: This review sought to synthesize existing evidence on work capacity assessments and to identify the knowledge supporting their use in return to work practice and future research. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted identifying studies examining assessments used in return to work. Studies published before 1986 and studies not written in English were excluded. A five point relevancy criteria was used to establish the fit of articles with the research question. Articles were thematically analyzed into components of the PEO Model, proposed future research, and areas of vested interest. RESULTS: Forty four articles met the criteria for inclusion. For over twenty five years, work capacity assessment literature has remained focused on the individual's physical work performance capacities. Gaps were identified in the lack of qualitative research and incorporation of person, occupation, and environmental dimensions in evaluation of work capacity. Future research recommendations emphasize the need for knowledge generation on work modification and investigation of psychosocial factors that impact work capacity and return to work yet only minimal progression is evident in these areas in the literature reviewed. CONCLUSION: The limited consideration of the occupation and environmental dimensions in returning to work and the global interest in work capacity assessment highlight the need for the development of contextually based assessment tools. Assessment needs to move toward the incorporation of environmental and occupational aspects in addition to the person dimension in a culturally transcendent manner.
OBJECTIVE: This review sought to synthesize existing evidence on work capacity assessments and to identify the knowledge supporting their use in return to work practice and future research. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted identifying studies examining assessments used in return to work. Studies published before 1986 and studies not written in English were excluded. A five point relevancy criteria was used to establish the fit of articles with the research question. Articles were thematically analyzed into components of the PEO Model, proposed future research, and areas of vested interest. RESULTS: Forty four articles met the criteria for inclusion. For over twenty five years, work capacity assessment literature has remained focused on the individual's physical work performance capacities. Gaps were identified in the lack of qualitative research and incorporation of person, occupation, and environmental dimensions in evaluation of work capacity. Future research recommendations emphasize the need for knowledge generation on work modification and investigation of psychosocial factors that impact work capacity and return to work yet only minimal progression is evident in these areas in the literature reviewed. CONCLUSION: The limited consideration of the occupation and environmental dimensions in returning to work and the global interest in work capacity assessment highlight the need for the development of contextually based assessment tools. Assessment needs to move toward the incorporation of environmental and occupational aspects in addition to the person dimension in a culturally transcendent manner.