Sylvia P Snoeck-Krygsman1,2,3, Frederieke G Schaafsma4,5, Birgit H P M Donker-Cools6,4,7, Carel T J Hulshof6,4, Lyanne P Jansen6,4, René J Kox7, Jan L Hoving6,4. 1. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.p.snoeck-krygsman@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Research Center for Insurance Medicine (KCVG): collaboration between AMC-UMCG-UWV-VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.p.snoeck-krygsman@amsterdamumc.nl. 3. Department of Social Medical Affairs (SMZ), The Dutch Social Security Institute: The Institute for Employee Benefits Schemes (UWV), La Guardiaweg 94-114, 1043 DL, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.p.snoeck-krygsman@amsterdamumc.nl. 4. Research Center for Insurance Medicine (KCVG): collaboration between AMC-UMCG-UWV-VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Social Medical Affairs (SMZ), The Dutch Social Security Institute: The Institute for Employee Benefits Schemes (UWV), La Guardiaweg 94-114, 1043 DL, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessing prognosis is challenging for many physicians in various medical fields. Research shows that physicians who perform disability assessments consider six areas when evaluating a prognosis: disease, treatment, course of the disease, external information, patient-related and physician-related aspects. We administered a questionnaire to evaluate how physicians rate the importance of these six prognosis areas during work disability evaluation and to explore what kind of support they would like during prognosis assessment. METHODS: Seventy-six physicians scored the importance of 23 prognostic aspects distributed over six prognosis areas. Participants scored the importance of each aspect both "in general" and from the perspective of a case vignette of a worker with a severe degenerative disease. The questionnaire also covered needs and suggestions for support during the evaluation of prognoses. RESULTS: Medical areas that are related to the disease, or the treatment or course of the disease, appeared important (scores of 7.0-9.0), with less differing opinions among participants (IQR 1.0-3.0). Corresponding verbatim remarks supported the importance of disease and treatment as prognostic aspects. In comparison, patient- and physician-related aspects scored somewhat lower, with more variability (range 4.0-8.0, with IQR 2.0-5.0 for patient- and physician-related considerations). Participants indicated a need for a tool or online database that includes prognostic aspects and prognostic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some variation in scores, the physicians rated all six prognosis areas as important for work disability evaluations. This study provides suggested aids to prognosis assessment, including an online support tool based on evidence-based medicine features.
BACKGROUND: Assessing prognosis is challenging for many physicians in various medical fields. Research shows that physicians who perform disability assessments consider six areas when evaluating a prognosis: disease, treatment, course of the disease, external information, patient-related and physician-related aspects. We administered a questionnaire to evaluate how physicians rate the importance of these six prognosis areas during work disability evaluation and to explore what kind of support they would like during prognosis assessment. METHODS: Seventy-six physicians scored the importance of 23 prognostic aspects distributed over six prognosis areas. Participants scored the importance of each aspect both "in general" and from the perspective of a case vignette of a worker with a severe degenerative disease. The questionnaire also covered needs and suggestions for support during the evaluation of prognoses. RESULTS: Medical areas that are related to the disease, or the treatment or course of the disease, appeared important (scores of 7.0-9.0), with less differing opinions among participants (IQR 1.0-3.0). Corresponding verbatim remarks supported the importance of disease and treatment as prognostic aspects. In comparison, patient- and physician-related aspects scored somewhat lower, with more variability (range 4.0-8.0, with IQR 2.0-5.0 for patient- and physician-related considerations). Participants indicated a need for a tool or online database that includes prognostic aspects and prognostic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some variation in scores, the physicians rated all six prognosis areas as important for work disability evaluations. This study provides suggested aids to prognosis assessment, including an online support tool based on evidence-based medicine features.
Keywords:
Disability and health (MeSH); Disability evaluation (MeSH); Evidence-based medicine (MeSH); International classification of functioning; Prognosis (MeSH); Work (MeSH)
Authors: Rob Kok; Jan L Hoving; Jos H Verbeek; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Paul B A Smits; Frank J H van Dijk Journal: Occup Med (Lond) Date: 2008-01-18 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Rob Kok; Jan L Hoving; Jos Verbeek; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Frank Jh van Dijk Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Yvonne F Heerkens; Marjolein de Weerd; Machteld Huber; Carin P M de Brouwer; Sabina van der Veen; Rom J M Perenboom; Coen H van Gool; Huib Ten Napel; Marja van Bon-Martens; Hillegonda A Stallinga; Nico L U van Meeteren Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Ilse Louwerse; Maaike A Huysmans; Jolanda H J van Rijssen; Joyce Overvliet; Allard J van der Beek; Johannes R Anema Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Geert-Jan Geersing; Walter Bouwmeester; Peter Zuithoff; Rene Spijker; Mariska Leeflang; Karel G M Moons; Karel Moons Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jan L Hoving; Rob Kok; Sarah M Ketelaar; Paul B A Smits; Frank J H van Dijk; Jos H Verbeek Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: René J Kox; Jan L Hoving; Jos H Verbeek; Maria J E Schouten; Carel T J Hulshof; Haije Wind; Monique H W Frings-Dresen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240