Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods in Measuring Return to Work: A Comparison of Measures of Return to Work Following Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose Methods of measuring return to work (RTW) following temporary disability are diverse. The purpose of this study was to compare different measures of RTW within a 12-month period using a well-defined population of patients treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) and weekly administrative data on transfer payments. Methods Different RTW measures were defined based on weekly data from 12 months follow-up after PCI and agreement between definitions was expressed as Cohen’s kappa. Prognostic factors for RTW were compared using logistic regression. Results Among those working before the PCI, 70 % were back to work at 6 months after the PCI and 76 % 1 year after when using cross-sectional measures and excluding those who left the workforce permanently during follow up. When using a time to event measure, 77 % experienced RTW during follow up, while only 60 % experienced RTW without recurrent sick-leave events during the following year. We found moderate to near perfect agreement when comparing the measures, with lowest agreement between the time-to-event measure without relapses compared to the other measures. When comparing prognostic factors for the different RTW outcomes, we found most associations similar in size, except from the clinical measure left ventricular ejection fraction, possibly related to recurrent sick leave. Conclusions Different measures revealed some differences in proportions of RTW. However, high agreement between RTW-definitions was found. Choice of RTW-definitions should depend on study purpose; simple cross-sectional methods are sufficient in prediction of RTW and analysis of risk factors, while methods capturing relapses are recommended when sustainability, prognosis and vulnerability are in focus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Young AE, Roessler RT, Wasiak R, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):557–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wasiak R, Young AE, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. Measuring return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(4):766–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Krause NLT. Return to Work After Occupational Injury. In: Barling J, Frone MR. (red), editor. The Psychology of Workplace Safety. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2004. p. 265.

  4. Bultmann U, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Cote P, Lee H, Severin C, et al. Health status, work limitations, and return-to-work trajectories in injured workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(7):1167–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Butler R, Johnson W, Baldwin M. Managing work disability: why first return to work is not a measure of success. Industrial Labour Relat Review. 1995;48:452–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Steenstra IA, Lee H, de Vroome EM, Busse JW, Hogg-Johnson SJ. Comparing current definitions of return to work: a measurement approach. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;14(22):394–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lund T, Labriola M. Sickness absence in Denmark—research, results and reflections. Scand J Work Environ Health Suppl. 2009;7:5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hjollund NH, Larsen FB, Andersen JH. Register-based follow-up of social benefits and other transfer payments: accuracy and degree of completeness in a Danish interdepartmental administrative database compared with a population-based survey. Scand J Public Health. 2007;35(5):497–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schmidt M, Maeng M, Jakobsen CJ, Madsen M, Thuesen L, Nielsen PH, et al. Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: The Western Denmark Heart Registry. Clin Epidemiol. 2010;2:137–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Statistics Denmark. Population by socioeconomic status. Available at: statbank.dk. Accessed 02/08, 2012.

  12. Goertz MN. Prognostic indicators for acute low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990 Dec;15(12):1307-1310.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by The Danish Heart Association, The Danish Working Environment Research Fund and The Western Denmark Research Forum for Health Research.

Ethics

The study was approved by Danish Data Protection Agency j.no. 2007-41-0991.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational Medicine, Regional Hospital West Jutland, DK-7400, Herning, Denmark

    Karin Biering, Niels Henrik Hjøllund & Thomas Lund

  2. Danish Ramazzini Centre, Central Region Denmark, Aarhus, Denmark

    Karin Biering & Thomas Lund

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Niels Henrik Hjøllund

  4. National Research Centre for Occupational Rehabilitation, Rauland, Norway

    Thomas Lund

Authors
  1. Karin Biering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niels Henrik Hjøllund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Biering.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biering, K., Hjøllund, N.H. & Lund, T. Methods in Measuring Return to Work: A Comparison of Measures of Return to Work Following Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease. J Occup Rehabil 23, 400–405 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9405-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9405-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation