Literature DB >> 28756480

Validation of the Readiness for Return-To-Work Scale in Outpatient Occupational Rehabilitation in Canada.

Joanne Park1,2, Mary Roduta Roberts3, Shaniff Esmail3, Fahreen Rayani4, Colleen M Norris5, Douglas P Gross6.   

Abstract

Purpose To examine construct and concurrent validity of the Readiness for Return-To-Work (RRTW) Scale with injured workers participating in an outpatient occupational rehabilitation program. Methods Lost-time claimants (n = 389) with sub-acute or chronic musculoskeletal disorders completed the RRTW Scale on their first day of their occupational rehabilitation program. Statistical analysis included exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the readiness items, reliability analyses, and correlation with related scales and questionnaires. Results For claimants in the non-job attached/not working group (n = 165), three factors were found (1) Contemplation (2) Prepared for Action-Self-evaluative and (3) Prepared for Action-Behavioural. The precontemplation stage was not identified within this sample of injured workers. For claimants who were job attached/working group in some capacity (n = 224), two factors were identified (1) Uncertain Maintenance and (2) Proactive Maintenance. Expected relationships and statistically significant differences were found among the identified Return-To-Work (RTW) readiness factors and related constructs of pain, physical and mental health and RTW expectations. Conclusion Construct and concurrent validity of the RRTW Scale were supported in this study. The results of this study indicate the construct of readiness for RTW can vary by disability duration and occupational category. Physical health appears to be a significant barrier to RRTW for the job attached/working group while mental health significantly compromises RRTW with the non-job attached/not working group.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Measurement; Musculoskeletal; Readiness for change; Return-To-Work; Work disability; Workers’ compensation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28756480     DOI: 10.1007/s10926-017-9721-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Rehabil        ISSN: 1053-0487


  22 in total

1.  A developmental conceptualization of return to work.

Authors:  Amanda E Young; Richard T Roessler; Radoslaw Wasiak; Kathryn M McPherson; Mireille N M van Poppel; J R Anema
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-12

2.  Work-related recovery expectations and the prognosis of chronic low back pain within a workers' compensation setting.

Authors:  Douglas P Gross; Michele C Battié
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.162

3.  A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing functional capacity evaluation and functional interviewing as components of occupational rehabilitation programs.

Authors:  Douglas P Gross; Alexander K Asante; Maxi Miciak; Michele C Battié; Linda J Carroll; Ambrose Sun; Marti Mikalsky; Rene Huellstrung; Riikka Niemeläinen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2014-12

4.  Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology.

Authors:  Mary Roduta Roberts; Grace Reid; Meadow Schroeder; Stephen P Norris
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2011-10-18

5.  Subjective health complaints in relation to sickness absence.

Authors:  Corné A M Roelen; Petra C Koopmans; Johan W Groothoff
Journal:  Work       Date:  2010

6.  Recovery expectations predict recovery in workers with back pain but not other musculoskeletal conditions.

Authors:  Douglas Paul Gross; Michele Crites Battié
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2010-10

7.  Relationship of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) with three dynamic physical tests in a group of patients with chronic low-back and leg pain.

Authors:  M Grönblad; E Järvinen; H Hurri; M Hupli; E O Karaharju
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.442

Review 8.  Systematic review of the ability of recovery expectations to predict outcomes in non-chronic non-specific low back pain.

Authors:  Ross A Iles; Megan Davidson; Nicholas F Taylor; Paul O'Halloran
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2009-01-06

Review 9.  Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP).

Authors:  Gillian A Hawker; Samra Mian; Tetyana Kendzerska; Melissa French
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.794

10.  Self perceptions as predictors for return to work 2 years after rehabilitation in orthopedic trauma inpatients.

Authors:  Maria Iakova; Pierluigi Ballabeni; Peter Erhart; Nikola Seichert; François Luthi; Olivier Dériaz
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2012-12
View more
  4 in total

1.  Predictors of Return to Work for Occupational Rehabilitation Users in Work-Related Injury Insurance Claims: Insights from Mental Health.

Authors:  Hadi Akbarzadeh Khorshidi; Miriam Marembo; Uwe Aickelin
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2019-12

2.  Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Reliability and Validity of the Danish Version of the Readiness for Return to Work Instrument.

Authors:  Christina Malmose Stapelfeldt; Anne-Mette Hedeager Momsen; Thomas Lund; Therese Koops Grønborg; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Chris Jensen; Janne Skakon; Merete Labriola
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2019-06

3.  Return to employment for working-aged adults after burn injury: a scoping review protocol.

Authors:  Akane Katsu; Zephanie Tyack; Martin Mackey; James M Elliott; Lynette Mackenzie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  The Readiness for Return to Work Scale; Does it Help in Evaluation of Return to Work?

Authors:  Lene Aasdahl; Marius Steiro Fimland; Cecilie Røe
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2021-10-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.