Workability for persons with chronic diseases. A systematic review of validity and utility of assessments in German language / Valide und praktikable deutschsprachige Assessments zur Erfassung der Arbeitsfähigkeit bei Menschen mit chronischen Erkrankungen – eine systematische Review

T. Friedli, P. Villiger, B. Gantschnig
{"title":"Workability for persons with chronic diseases. A systematic review of validity and utility of assessments in German language / Valide und praktikable deutschsprachige Assessments zur Erfassung der Arbeitsfähigkeit bei Menschen mit chronischen Erkrankungen – eine systematische Review","authors":"T. Friedli, P. Villiger, B. Gantschnig","doi":"10.2478/ijhp-2018-0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background People with chronic diseases are often limited in their workability. Evaluating and enabling workability is central in rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate validity and utility of workability assessments in German for persons with chronic diseases. Methods The study is a systematic review. First, we systematically searched for literature in the databases Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane HTA Database, DARE, CCMed, Sowiport, and BASE using following keywords: evaluation tool, chronic disease, workability, validity, and utility. Then, we evaluated the content and the quality of the studies based on criteria and decided if they were included. Results In total, validity and utility of eight workability assessments are described based on 74 studies. The assessments are: Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ), Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS), Screening-Instrument Arbeit und Beruf (SIBAR), Screening-Instrument zur Feststellung des Bedarfs an medizinisch-beruflich orientierten Maßnahmen in der medizinischen Rehabilitation (SIMBO), Valuation of Lost Productivity Questionnaire (VOLP), Work Ability Index (WAI/ABI), Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Conclusion The results revealed the availability of eight workability assessments for persons with chronic diseases in German language. They have strengths and weaknesses in relation to the construct, purpose, application, and evidence base. These could be the base for choice of an assessment. Overall, we suggest using workability assessment in order to meet the legal requirements for the use of standardized assessments and the increasing demand to establish evidence of the effectiveness of interventions.","PeriodicalId":91706,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health professions","volume":"39 1","pages":"72 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2018-0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract Background People with chronic diseases are often limited in their workability. Evaluating and enabling workability is central in rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate validity and utility of workability assessments in German for persons with chronic diseases. Methods The study is a systematic review. First, we systematically searched for literature in the databases Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane HTA Database, DARE, CCMed, Sowiport, and BASE using following keywords: evaluation tool, chronic disease, workability, validity, and utility. Then, we evaluated the content and the quality of the studies based on criteria and decided if they were included. Results In total, validity and utility of eight workability assessments are described based on 74 studies. The assessments are: Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ), Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS), Screening-Instrument Arbeit und Beruf (SIBAR), Screening-Instrument zur Feststellung des Bedarfs an medizinisch-beruflich orientierten Maßnahmen in der medizinischen Rehabilitation (SIMBO), Valuation of Lost Productivity Questionnaire (VOLP), Work Ability Index (WAI/ABI), Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Conclusion The results revealed the availability of eight workability assessments for persons with chronic diseases in German language. They have strengths and weaknesses in relation to the construct, purpose, application, and evidence base. These could be the base for choice of an assessment. Overall, we suggest using workability assessment in order to meet the legal requirements for the use of standardized assessments and the increasing demand to establish evidence of the effectiveness of interventions.
永生不灭一套系统审查德国队和使用炸药的效力和效用,和有效的德语审核员审查工作能力——一种系统审查
背景慢性病患者的工作能力往往受到限制。评估和实现可操作性是康复工作的核心。本研究的目的是评价用德语对慢性病患者进行可行性评估的有效性和实用性。方法采用系统评价方法。首先,我们系统地检索了Medline、CINAHL、PsycInfo、Cochrane HTA数据库、DARE、CCMed、Sowiport和BASE数据库中的文献,检索关键词为:评估工具、慢性疾病、可操作性、有效性和实用性。然后,我们根据标准评估研究的内容和质量,并决定是否纳入。结果基于74项研究,对8种可操作性评价的效度和效用进行了描述。评估方法包括:生产力成本问卷(iPCQ)、类风湿关节炎工作不稳定性量表(RA-WIS)、筛查仪器诊断与诊断(SIBAR)、筛查仪器诊断与诊断(SIMBO)、生产力损失评估问卷(VOLP)、工作能力指数(WAI/ABI)、工作限制问卷(WLQ)、工作效率与活动障碍问卷(WPAI)。结论对慢性疾病患者进行了8种可操作性评价。它们在结构、目的、应用和证据基础方面有优点和缺点。这些可以作为选择评估的基础。总的来说,我们建议使用可操作性评估,以满足使用标准化评估的法律要求和建立干预措施有效性证据的日益增长的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信