Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic ReviewerS

Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors’ reasons for choosing specifc WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods
We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP
outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut of points and varying defnitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes For the evaluation of interventions.

Aim

The overall aim of this survey was to explore researchers’ perspectives and experiences when considering (the measurement of) work participation outcomes for RCTs and SRs.

Contributors

Margarita Ravinskaya, Jos H. Verbeek, Miranda W. Langendam, Ira Madan, Suzanne M. M. Verstappen, Regina Kunz, Carel T. J. Hulshof, Jan L. Hoving

Publication

Journal: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Volume: 32
Issue:
Pages: 620 - 628
Year: 2022
DOI: 10.1007/s10926-022-10031-0

Further Study Information

Current Stage: Completed
Date:
Funding source(s): SV is supported by Versus Arthritis (Grant Numbers 20385, 20380) and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.


Health Area

Disease Category: Other

Disease Name: N/A

Target Population

Age Range: 18 - 65

Sex: Either

Nature of Intervention: Other

Stakeholders Involved

- Journal editors
- Researchers

Study Type

- Recommendations made

Method(s)

- Survey

We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP.