To examine and compare the sensibility attributes (face/content validity and feasibility) of five at-work productivity measures from the perspective of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Study design and setting:
Workers with OA or RA (n = 250) completed a survey that includes five at-work productivity (presenteeism) measures and questions asking about their comprehensiveness, understandability, length, and suitability of response options. A final question asked respondents which single measure was considered "best" overall. Measures compared included the Workplace Activity Limitations Scale (WALS), Stanford Presenteeism Scale, Endicott Work Productivity Scale, Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS), and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ-25). Sensibility performance was assessed quantitatively (% respondent endorsement) and qualitatively via written feedback.
The WLQ-25 was considered most comprehensive (endorsed by 92.8%), the WALS performed best in terms of understandability (97.6%) and suitability of response options (97.9%), and the RA-WIS was favored in terms of length (91.6%). Consistent sensibility performance between OA and RA was found. The WALS (32.6%) and WLQ-25 (30.0%) were moderately preferred in the final overall appraisal.
Sensibility criteria were generally met by all five at-work productivity measures. Variable endorsement levels across specific sensibility attributes were also revealed across the measures compared.
"Four of the questionnaire items were reverse scored so that higher scores indicated greater sensibility. According to criteria proposed by Rowe and Oxman (1993), an instrument is considered sensible if mean scores of 5 are obtained for at least 80% of the questionnaire items and if no questionnaire items receive a mean rating of 3. Similar criteria have previously been used for establishing the sensibility of instruments in clinical domains (Rowe and Oxman, 1993; O'Brien et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2013). Interview transcripts underwent directed content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) in which an existing sensibility framework (Rowe and Oxman 1987) served to inform the deductive , structured approach to the initial coding process. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: a b s t r a c t Sound application of clinical reasoning (CR) by the physical therapist is critical to achieving optimal patient outcomes. As such, it is important for institutions granting certification in orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT) to ensure that the assessment of CR is sufficiently robust. At present, the dearth of validated instruments to assess CR in OMPT presents a serious challenge to certifying institutions. Moreover, the lack of documentation of the development process for instruments that measure CR pose additional challenges. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sensibility of a newly developed instrument for assessing written responses to a test of CR in OMPT; a 'pilot' phase that examines instrument feasibility and acceptability. Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, Canadian OMPT examiners were recruited to first review and use the instrument. Participants completed a sensibility questionnaire followed by semi-structured interviews, the latter of which were used to elaborate on questionnaire responses regarding feasibility and acceptability. Eleven examiners completed the questionnaire and interviews. Questionnaire results met previously established sensibility criteria, while interview data revealed participants' (dis)comfort with exerting their own judgment and with the rating scale. Quantitative and qualitative data provided valuable insight regarding content validity and issues related to efficiency in assessing CR competence; all of which will ultimately inform further psychometric testing. While results suggest that the new instrument for assessing clinical reasoning in the Canadian cer-tification context is sensible, future research should explore how rater judgment can be utilized effec-tively and the mental workload associated with appraising clinical reasoning.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT 11 Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) - an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group.
The Journal of Rheumatology 10/2013; 41(1). DOI:10.3899/jrheum.130815 · 3.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Abstract The purpose of this retrospective, longitudinal study was to assess longitudinal associations between modifiable health risks and workplace absenteeism and presenteeism and to estimate lost productivity costs. Across the 4-year study period (2007-2010), 17,089 unique employees from a large US computer manufacturer with a highly technical workforce completed at least 1 health risk assessment. Generalized estimating equation models were used to estimate the mean population-level absenteeism and presenteeism for 11 modifiable health risks and adjust for 9 sociodemographic and employment-related factors. Because patient age was highly correlated with several other variables, the analysis was stratified by age (<45 vs. ≥45 years). For all ages, poor emotional health, inadequate exercise, tobacco use, and having a body mass index (BMI) greater than 35 (all P<.05) were consistently associated with both absenteeism and presenteeism. Having a BMI over 35 and poor emotional health were associated with the largest impact in absenteeism (0.46 days) and presenteeism (4.03 days), respectively. Younger and older workers had similar associations between health risks and presenteeism; however, hypertension, blood sugar, inadequate exercise, and alcohol were associated (P⪕.01) with greater absenteeism among older but not younger workers. The results suggest that productivity loss is strongly related to emotional health and obesity-related health risks (eg, BMI, exercise) but differs by age. These findings could help prioritize preventive health programs offered by employers at their worksite health centers. Given the aging of the US workforce, keeping older workers healthy and productive will be crucial to remaining competitive in the global economy. (Population Health Management 2014;xx:xxx-xxx).
Population Health Management 11/2014; 18(1). DOI:10.1089/pop.2014.0033 · 1.51 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.