PURPOSE: To describe clients' and experts' view on the utility of functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for the assessment of physical work ability, prognosis for work participation and advice on return to work (RTW). METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with fourteen clients and fifteen RTW experts. Qualitative data were analysed independently by two researchers. The codes were compared and combined in higher-order topics until consensus was reached by three researchers. RESULTS: For the assessment of physical work ability, FCE was found useful according to both groups, because it provided an overview of the physical abilities. Clients indicated that FCE confirmed and/or altered their view on their work ability. RTW experts were able to verify consistency between verbal information and performance of the client. For making a prognosis of work participation, only RTW experts found FCE useful. For the advice on RTW, both groups found FCE useful. The RTW trajectory could be clearly outlined. Both groups indicated that clients felt they were being taken seriously by performing FCE. CONCLUSIONS: Clients and RTW experts indicated FCE as being useful for the assessment of physical work ability and advice on RTW. Only RTW experts indicated FCE as being useful for making a prognosis for work participation.
PURPOSE: To describe clients' and experts' view on the utility of functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for the assessment of physical work ability, prognosis for work participation and advice on return to work (RTW). METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with fourteen clients and fifteen RTW experts. Qualitative data were analysed independently by two researchers. The codes were compared and combined in higher-order topics until consensus was reached by three researchers. RESULTS: For the assessment of physical work ability, FCE was found useful according to both groups, because it provided an overview of the physical abilities. Clients indicated that FCE confirmed and/or altered their view on their work ability. RTW experts were able to verify consistency between verbal information and performance of the client. For making a prognosis of work participation, only RTW experts found FCE useful. For the advice on RTW, both groups found FCE useful. The RTW trajectory could be clearly outlined. Both groups indicated that clients felt they were being taken seriously by performing FCE. CONCLUSIONS: Clients and RTW experts indicated FCE as being useful for the assessment of physical work ability and advice on RTW. Only RTW experts indicated FCE as being useful for making a prognosis for work participation.
Authors: Vincent Gouttebarge; Haije Wind; P Paul F M Kuijer; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: V Gouttebarge; P P F M Kuijer; H Wind; C van Duivenbooden; J K Sluiter; M H W Frings-Dresen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-05-24 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Sandra E Lakke; Harriët Wittink; Jan H Geertzen; Cees P van der Schans; Michiel F Reneman Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Haije Wind; Vincent Gouttebarge; P Paul F M Kuijer; Judith K Sluiter; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Haije Wind; Vincent Gouttebarge; P Paul F M Kuijer; Judith K Sluiter; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Stijn De Baets; Patrick Calders; Noortje Schalley; Katrien Vermeulen; Sofie Vertriest; Lien Van Peteghem; Marieke Coussens; Fransiska Malfait; Guy Vanderstraeten; Geert Van Hove; Dominique Van de Velde Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2018-09