PTOTRCTJournal of occupational rehabilitation2018

Associations Between the Readiness for Return to Work Scale and Return to Work: A Prospective Study.

Lene Aasdahl, Kristine Pape, Chris Jensen and 4 others

PMID 28299536

WHAT IT FOUND

A single question asking how long a patient expects to be sick-listed predicted return to work better than the full Readiness for Return to Work scale.

High scores on 'Prepared for action' predicted success, but the scale's stage allocation method failed due to tied scores.

Key findings

01Models using a single question about expected length of sick leave explained work outcomes better than models using the Readiness for Return to Work dimensions.

02For participants not working, high scores on the 'Prepared for action—self-evaluative' and 'Prepared for action—behavioral' dimensions were associated with a higher probability of sustainable return to work.

03The stage allocation approach was problematic because many participants had tied scores on non-adjacent dimensions, and the distribution of participants across stages was uneven.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

35% of participants did not complete the end-of-rehabilitation questionnaire, introducing potential selection bias. The RRTW scale had low internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha < 0.70) for the dimensions most associated with outcomes. The study could not calculate ROC curves due to low numbers achieving sustainable return to work. Participants on graded sick leave may have been misclassified as 'working' or 'not working' due to ambiguous questionnaire wording.

Declared interests

Funded by The Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norges Forskningsråd, and Helse Midt-Norge. No conflicts of interest declared.

The easy way to misread this

Do not use the Readiness for Return to Work scale to assign patients to specific intervention stages. The study found that the scale's stage allocation method was flawed because many patients had tied scores on different dimensions, and the single expectation question was a better predictor of return to work.

Read it on PubMed →