Exploring the implementation of an ICF-based instrument and guideline for interprofessional collaboration in the return-to-work process.
Donny Kreuger, Bouwine Carlier, Birgit Hpm Donker-Cools and 3 others
Occupational health professionals who trialled an ICF-based tool described it as helpful for describing work capacity in context and for sharing understanding across professions.
They recommended removing the numeric scoring and said digital integration into their records is a prerequisite for use.
Key findings
1OHPs found the ICF-based instrument useful for capturing the complexity of long-term sick leave cases and for enabling collaboration between medical and non-medical professionals through the ICF activity and participation codes.
2Most OHPs recommended removing the quantitative scoring options (e.g., 'can carry 10-15 kg', 'can focus for 30 min') because they felt these failed to capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of work capacity.
3Most OHPs identified digital integration of the instrument into their electronic patient file systems as a key condition for implementation, citing the time burden of manual data entry as a barrier.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they found
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.
What it does not show
All 21 participants were occupational health professionals in the Dutch RTW system, so the findings cannot be generalised to other countries, other RTW structures, or other professional groups. The instrument was completed only once per employee in this study, so its value for tracking change over the course of sick leave was not tested. Some occupational physicians were unable to complete all four assigned cases due to time constraints, so the full intended use was not observed. No digital version of the instrument existed during the study, so the time burden and workflow friction reported by participants may not reflect the experience of a properly integrated tool. Purposive sampling was used to ensure professional diversity, but the group is small and not representative of all OHPs in the Netherlands.
Declared interests
Funded by ZonMw and the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript writing, or the decision to publish. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the recommendation to remove numeric scoring as evidence that quantitative work capacity measures are wrong. This is a feasibility study of one instrument in the Dutch RTW system, with 21 professionals who used a paper version. Their preferences reflect their experience with this specific tool in this specific context, not a general finding about how work capacity should be assessed.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →