Content Comparison of Worker Productivity Questionnaires in Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Conditions Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Framework

  • Reuben EscorpizoEmail author
  • Alarcos Cieza
  • Dorcas Beaton
  • Annelies Boonen


Background Worker productivity outcome is essential in examining the rehabilitation of workers with arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions. There is great variation in the contents of worker productivity questionnaires. The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) offers the possibility to serve as a reference to describe and compare the contents of these questionnaires. Methods A literature review identified published self-report worker productivity questionnaires. All meaningful concepts were identified and linked to the corresponding ICF category according to established rules. Results Eighteen questionnaires were identified which contained a total of 519 meaningful concepts and which were linked to 64 unique 2nd level ICF categories. All questionnaires addressed Activities and Participation, thirteen (72%) addressed Body Functions, seven (39%) addressed Environmental Factors, seven (39%) addressed Personal Factors and only one questionnaire (6%) for Body Structures component. Overall, Work Role Functioning (WRF) questionnaire addressed the most number of different categories while Quantity and Quality method contained only one ICF category. The Rheumatoid Arthritis-Work Instability Scale had the highest number of categories for Body Functions, the Work Activity Limitations Scale and WRF had the most number of categories for Activities and Participation. The Health and Labour Questionnaire had the highest number of categories referring to unpaid work participation. The Health and Work Questionnaire was the only that included contextualization of both Environmental and Personal Factors. Conclusion Self-report worker productivity questionnaires differed largely in their contents. This content analysis study could guide us in selecting an appropriate questionnaire for a specific study question.


Outcomes assessment Work Questionnaires Arthritis Absenteeism Presenteeism 



We would like to thank the ICF Research Branch for the kind support, Edda Amman who assisted in the linking process, and Barbara Kollerits who provided statistical support and also assisted in linking. Special thanks to OMERACT, collaborators of this study, questionnaire developers and their support staff, and Brittany Norton for providing assistance in preparing the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millenium. WHO Technical Report Series 919; 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woolf AD, Akesson K. Can we reduce the burden of musculoskeletal conditions? The European action towards better musculoskeletal health. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21:1–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005. Arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions in Australia. AIHW Cat. No. PHE67; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United States Joint and Bone Decade. The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; 2008. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maetzel A, Li LC, Pencharz J, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C, Community Hypertension and Arthritis Project Study Team. The economic burden associated with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and hypertension: a comparative study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:395–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badley EM, Wang PP. The contribution of arthritis and arthritis disability to nonparticipation in the labor force: a Canadian example. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:1077–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zirkzee EJ, Sneep AC, de Buck PD, Allaart CF, Peeters AJ, Ronday HK, et al. Sick leave and work disability in patients with early arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2008;27:11–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Upmark M, Borg K, Alexanderson K. Gender differences in experiencing negative encounters with healthcare: a study of long-term sickness absentees. Scand J Public Health. 2007;35:577–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Klink JJ, Blonk RW, Schene AH, van Dijk FJ. Reducing long term sickness absence by an activating intervention in adjustment disorders: a cluster randomised controlled design. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:429–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bultmann U, Sherson D, Olsen J, Hansen CL, Lund T, Kilsgaard J. Coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:81–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bogefeldt J, Grunnesjo MI, Svardsudd K, Blomberg S. Sick leave reductions from a comprehensive manual therapy programme for low back pain: the Gotland low back pain study. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22:529–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boles M, Pelletier B, Lynch W. The relationship between health risks and work productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:737–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Escorpizo R, Bombardier C, Boonen A, Hazes JM, Lacaille D, Strand V, et al. Worker productivity outcome measures in arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1372–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, et al. The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:156–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loeppke R, Taitel M, Richling D, Parry T, Kessler RC, Hymel P, et al. Health and productivity as a business strategy. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49:712–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roelen CA, van der Pol TR, Koopmans PC, Groothoff JW. Identifying workers at risk of sickness absence by questionnaire. Occup Med (Lond). 2006;56:442–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang PS, Simon GE, Avorn J, Azocar F, Ludman EJ, McCulloch J, et al. Telephone screening, outreach, and care management for depressed workers and impact on clinical and work productivity outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298:1401–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:353–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilworth G, Chamberlain MA, Harvey A, Woodhouse A, Smith J, Smyth MG, et al. Development of a work instability scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49:349–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shikiar R, Halpern MT, Rentz AM, Khan ZM. Development of the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ): an instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health. Work. 2004;22:219–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;2:67–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39:72–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altshuler L, Mintz J, Leight K. The life functioning questionnaire (LFQ): a brief, gender-neutral scale assessing functional outcome. Psychiatry Res. 2002;112:161–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P. The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1998;25:198–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brockow T, Cieza A, Kuhlow H, Sigl T, Franke T, Harder M, et al. Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on musculoskeletal disorders and chronic widespread pain using the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a reference. J Rehabil Med. 2004;44(Suppl):30–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sigl T, Cieza A, Brockow T, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G. Content comparison of low back pain-specific measures based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Clin J Pain. 2006;22:147–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stamm T, Geyh S, Cieza A, Machold K, Kollerits B, Kloppenburg M, et al. Measuring functioning in patients with hand osteoarthritis—content comparison of questionnaires based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45:1534–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Ustun B, Stucki G. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:212–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, Amman E, Kollerits B, Chatterji S, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:205–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geyh S, Kurt T, Brockow T, Cieza A, Ewert T, Omar Z, et al. Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on stroke using the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a reference. J Rehabil Med. 2004;44(Suppl):56–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Efron B. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. Philadelphia: Society for industrial and applied mathematics; 1982.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vierkant RA. A SAS macro for calculating bootstrapped confidence intervals about a Kappa coefficient [homepage on the Internet]. Available from:
  35. 35.
    Endicott J, Nee J. Endicott work productivity scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997;33:13–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, Bonsel G, Rutten FF. Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care. The health and labor questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:405–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kumar RN, Hass SL, Li JZ, Nickens DJ, Daenzer CL, Wathen LK. Validation of the health-related productivity questionnaire diary (HRPQ-D) on a sample of patients with infectious mononucleosis: results from a phase 1 multicenter clinical trial. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:899–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koopmanschap M, Meerding WJ, Evers S, Severens J, Burdorf A, Brouwer W. Productivity and disease questionnaire-PRODISQ versie 2.1 (in Dutch). 2004.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, Sharda CE, Berger ML, Turpin RS, et al. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44:14–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Turpin RS, Ozminkowski RJ, Sharda CE, Collins JJ, Berger ML, Billotti GM, et al. Reliability and validity of the Stanford presenteeism scale. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:1123–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gignac MA, Badley EM, Lacaille D, Cott CC, Adam P, Anis AH. Managing arthritis and employment: making arthritis-related work changes as a means of adaptation. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51:909–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Beaton DE, Kennedy CA. Beyond return to work: testing a measure of at-work disability in workers with musculoskeletal pain. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1869–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Burton WN, Chen CY, Conti DJ, Pransky G, Edington DW. Caregiving for ill dependents and its association with employee health risks and productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:1048–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, Long SR. Development and reliability analysis of the work productivity short inventory (WPSI) instrument measuring employee health and productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:743–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Amick BC 3rd, Lerner D, Rogers WH, Rooney T, Katz JN. A review of health-related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. Spine. 2000;25:3152–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    van den Heuvel SG, Heinrich J, Jans MP, van der Beek AJ, Bongers PM. The effect of physical activity in leisure time on neck and upper limb symptoms. Prev Med. 2005;41:260–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van den Heuvel SG, Ijmker S, Blatter BM, de Korte EM. Loss of productivity due to neck/shoulder symptoms and hand/arm symptoms: results from the PROMO-study. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:370–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dreinhöfer K, Stucki G, Ewert T, Huber E, Ebenbichler G, Gutenbrunner C, et al. ICF core sets for osteoarthritis. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36(Suppl):75–80.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stucki G, Cieza A, Geyh S, Battistella L, Lloyd J, Symmons D, et al. ICF core sets for rheumatoid arthritis. J Rehabil Med. 2004;36(Suppl):87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reuben Escorpizo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alarcos Cieza
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dorcas Beaton
    • 3
    • 4
  • Annelies Boonen
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.ICF Research Branch of the World Health Organization-Collaborating Center, Family of International ClassificationsSwiss Paraplegic ResearchNottwilSwitzerland
  2. 2.ICF Research Branch of the World Health Organization-Collaborating Center, Family of International Classifications (DIMDI), Institute for Health and Rehabilitation SciencesLudwig-Maximilian UniversityMunichGermany
  3. 3.Mobility Program Clinical Research Unit, Keenan Research CentreLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute at St Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Institute for Work and HealthTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of RheumatologyMaastricht University Medical CenterMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Caphri Research InstituteMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations