The lack of association between changes in functional outcomes and work retention in a chronic disabling occupational spinal disorder population: Implications for the minimum clinical important difference

Spine

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2011, Pages

  Wilson, Hilary D ^a,d   Mayer, Tom G ^b   Gatchel, Robert J ^c  

^a PRIDE Research Foundation   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

chronic pain disability; functional restoration; minimal clinically important difference; objective outcome measures; occupational spinal disorders; responsiveness; self report measures

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISABLING OCCUPATIONAL SPINE DISORDER; CHRONIC PAIN; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; DISABILITY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL COMPONENT SUMMARY; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PHYSICAL COMPONENT SUMMARY; PHYSICIAN; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT FORM 36; SPINE DISEASE; WORK; WORK RETENTION;

ADULT; CHRONIC DISEASE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SELF-ASSESSMENT; SPINAL DISEASES; WORK;

EID: 79952991713     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d41632     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, et al. On assessing respon-siveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003;12:349-62. (Pubitemid 36612040)
2. Jaeschke R, Singer JE, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
3. Wells G, Anderson J, Boers M, et al. MCID/Low disease activity state workshop: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol 2003; 30:1115-8. (Pubitemid 36529645)
4. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defi ning clinically mean-ingful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407. (Pubitemid 36694091)
5. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7:541-6. (Pubitemid 47471437)
6. Hays R, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful differ-ence in health-related quality of life research. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18: 419-23.
7. Kulkarni AV. Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:176-84. (Pubitemid 43111622)
8. Beaton D, Bombadier C, Katz JN, et al. Looking for impor-tant change/difference in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 2001;28:400-5. (Pubitemid 32165160)
9. McGovern P, Kochevar L, Lohman W, et al. The cost of work-related physical assaults in Minnesota. Health Serv Res 2000;35:663-86. (Pubitemid 30637366)
10. Waehrer G, Leigh JP, Cassady D, et al. Costs of occupational injury and illness across states. J Occup Environ Med 2004;46:1084-95. (Pubitemid 39362474)
11. Schulte PA. Characterizing the burden of occupational injury and disease. J Occup Environ Med 2005;47:607-22. (Pubitemid 40847445)
12. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-3. (Pubitemid 11234479)
13. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30: 473-83.
14. Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, eds. Functional Restoration for Spinal Disorders: The Sports Medicine Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1988.
15. Curtis L, Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ. Physical progress and re-sidual impairment quantifi cation after functional restora-tion. Part III: isokinetic and isoinertial lifting capacity. Spine 1994;19:401-5. (Pubitemid 24073219)
16. Mayer T, Gatchel R, Keeley J, et al. A male incumbent worker industrial database. Part I: lumbar spinal physical capacity. Spine 1994;19:755-61. (Pubitemid 24111355)
17. Mayer T, Gatchel R, Keeley J, et al. A male incumbent worker in-dustrial database. Part II: cervical spinal physical capacity. Spine 1994;19:762-4. (Pubitemid 24111356)
18. Mayer T, Gatchel R, Keeley J, et al. A male incumbent worker in-dustrial database. Part III: lumbar/cervical functional testing. Spine 1994;19:765-70. (Pubitemid 24111357)
19. Mayer T, Pope P, Tabor J, et al. Physical progress and residual im-pairment quantifi cation after functional restoration. Part I: lumbar mobility. Spine 1994;18:389-94. (Pubitemid 24073217)
20. Dersh J, Gatchel RJ, Polatin P, et al. Prevalence of psychiatric dis-orders in patients with chronic work-related musculoskeletal pain disability. J Occup Environ Med 2002;44:459-88.
21. Brady S, Mayer T, Gatchel RJ. Physical progress and residual im-pairment quantifi cation after functional restoration. Part II: iso-kinetic trunk strength. Spine 1994;19:395-400. (Pubitemid 24073218)
22. Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Kishino N, et al. Objective assessment of spine function following industrial injury: a prospective study with comparison group and one-year follow-up. Spine 1985;10:482-93. (Pubitemid 16202404)
23. Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Mayer H, et al. A prospective two year study of functional restoration in industrial low back injury utiliz-ing objective assessment. JAMA 1987;258:1763-7. (Pubitemid 18092203)
24. Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Prescott M. Socioeconomic outcomes following treatment of occupational musculoskeletal disorders: methodology and data collection. In: Beijani P, ed. Occupational Musculoskeletal Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Company; 2002.
25. Mayer T, Gatchel R, Mayer H, et al. A prospective 2-year study of functional restoration in industrial low back injury: an objective assessment procedure. JAMA 1987;258:1763-7. (Pubitemid 18092203)
26. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
27. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther 1998;78:1197-207. (Pubitemid 28507243)
28. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, et al. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 1998;78: 1186-96. (Pubitemid 28507242)
29. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2007.
30. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc; 1988.
31. Bendix AF, Bendix T, Haestrup C Can it be predicted which patients with chronic low back pain should be offered tertiary rehabilitation in a functional restoration program? A search for demographic, so-cioeconomic, and physical predictors. Spine 1998;23:1775-83.
32. Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Evans TH. Effect of age on outcomes of tertiary rehabilitation for chronic disabling spinal disorders. Spine 2001;26: 1378-84. (Pubitemid 32552515)
33. Hildebrandt J, Pfi ngsten M, Saur P, et al. Prediction of success from a mul-tidisciplinary treatment program for chronic low back pain. Spine 1997;22: 990-1001. (Pubitemid 27203490)
34. Beurskens AJ, deVet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 1996;65:71-6. (Pubitemid 26227690)
35. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, et al. Responsiveness of com-mon outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 1999;24:1805-12. (Pubitemid 29426675)
36. Stewart M, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, et al. Responsiveness of pain and disability measures for chronic whiplash. Spine 2007;32: 580-5. (Pubitemid 46398926)
37. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Out-comes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and Pain Scales. Spine J 2008;8:968-74.
38. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards inter-national consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008;33:90-4.
39. Norman GR, Stratford PW, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cron bach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:869-79. (Pubitemid 27423516)