M. Ravinskaya¹, J. H. Verbeek¹, M. Langendam¹, C. T. J. Hulshof¹, I. Madan², S. M. M. Verstappen³, R. Kunz⁴, J. L. Hoving¹

¹Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, The Netherlands

²Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust and King’s College London, Occupational Health Service Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK

³Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester; NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre; MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Health and Work, University of Southampton, UK

⁴Research Unit Evidence Based Insurance Medicine (EbIM), Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel and University of Basel Hospital, Switzerland

Background

It is currently not possible to quantitatively synthesize evidence of WP outcomes on a large scale due to hetergogeneity in outcome measurements.

Aims

To explore authors’ reasons for choosing specific 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 off points and varying definitions 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.