Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clients’ and RTW experts’ view on the utility of FCE for the assessment of physical work ability, prognosis for work participation and advice on return to work

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To describe clients’ and experts’ view on the utility of functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for the assessment of physical work ability, prognosis for work participation and advice on return to work (RTW).

Methods

Semi-structured telephone interviews were performed with fourteen clients and fifteen RTW experts. Qualitative data were analysed independently by two researchers. The codes were compared and combined in higher-order topics until consensus was reached by three researchers.

Results

For the assessment of physical work ability, FCE was found useful according to both groups, because it provided an overview of the physical abilities. Clients indicated that FCE confirmed and/or altered their view on their work ability. RTW experts were able to verify consistency between verbal information and performance of the client. For making a prognosis of work participation, only RTW experts found FCE useful. For the advice on RTW, both groups found FCE useful. The RTW trajectory could be clearly outlined. Both groups indicated that clients felt they were being taken seriously by performing FCE.

Conclusions

Clients and RTW experts indicated FCE as being useful for the assessment of physical work ability and advice on RTW. Only RTW experts indicated FCE as being useful for making a prognosis for work participation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Stewart RE, Eken LNH, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB (2005) Comparing self-report, clinical examination and functional testing in the assessment of work-related limitations in patients with chronic low back pain. Disabil Rehabil 27:999–1005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman-Day KM, Matheson LN, Schimanski D, Leicht J, DeVries L (2011) Preparing difficult clients to return to work. Work 40:359–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers-Sánchez PM, Wind H, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH (2010) A qualitative study of perpetuating factors for long term sick leave and promoting factors for return to work: chronic work disabled patients in their own words. J Rehabil Med 42:544–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers-Sánchez PM, Wind H, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2011) What promotes sustained return to work of employees on long-term sick leave? Perspectives of vocational rehabilitation professionals. Scand J Work Environ Health 37:481–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers-Sánchez PM, Wind H, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2012) What factors are most relevant to the assessment of work ability of employees on long-term sick leave? The physicians’ perspective. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, Online First

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergo-Kit (2011) Information about the Ergo-Kit, http://www.ergocontrol.nl/diagnose/functionele-capaciteit-evaluatie/ergo-kit-r-fce (in Dutch). Accessed 2 Aug 2011

  • Fadyl J, McPherson K (2008) Return to work after injury: a review of evidence regarding expectations and injury perceptions, and their influence on outcome. J Occup Rehabil 18:362–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM (2010) What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health 25:1229–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genovese E, Galper JS (2009) Guide to the evaluation of functional ability: how to request, interpret, and apply functional capacity evaluations. American Medical Association, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2004) Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluation methods: a systematic review with reference to blankenship system, Ergos work simulator, Ergo-Kit and Isernhagen work system. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 77:527–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2006) Reliability and agreement of five Ergo-Kit FCE lifting tests in subjects with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87:1365–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, Wind H, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2009a) Criterion-related validity of functional capacity evaluation lifting tests on future work disability risk and return to work in the construction industry. Occup Environ Med 66:657–663

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH (2009b) Construct validity of functional capacity evaluation lifting tests in construction workers on sick leave as a result of musculoskeletal disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:302–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross DP, Battié MC (2005) Factors influencing results of functional capacity evaluations in workers’ compensation claimants with low back pain. Phys Ther 85:315–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18:59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilmarinen J (2009) Work ability—a comprehensive concept for occupational health research and Prevention. Scand J Work Environ Health 35(1):1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K, Seitsamo J (2005) New dimensions of work ability. Int Congr Ser 1280:3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes E, Hardwick M (2010) Actual versus perceived lifting ability in healthy young men (18–25 years). Work 36:157–166

    Google Scholar 

  • James C, MacKenzie L (2009) The clinical utility of functional capacity evaluations: the opinion of health professionals working within occupational rehabilitation. Work 33:231–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Klandermans B, Staggenbord S (2002) Semi structured interviewing in social movement research, Methods of social movement research. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijer PPFM, Gouttebarge V, Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Frings-Dresen MHW (2012a) Are performance-based measures predictive of work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders? A systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 85:109–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuijer PPFM, Gouttebarge V, Wind H, van Duivenbooden C, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2012b) Prognostic value of self-reported work ability and performance-based lifting tests for sustainable return to work among construction workers. Scan J Work Environ Health 38(6):600–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakke SE, Wittink H, Geertzen JH, van der Schans CP, Reneman MF (2012) factors that affect functional capacity in patients with musculoskeletal pain: a delphi study among scientists, clinicians, and patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 93(3):446–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyeflaten I, Hysing M, Eriksen H (2008) Prognostic factors associated with return to work following multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 40:548–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrie K, Weinman J, Sharpe N (1996) Role of patients’ view of their illness in predicting return to work and functioning after myocardial infarction: longitudinal study. BMJ 312:1191–1194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rainville J, Pransky G, Indahl A, Mayer EK (2005) The physician as disability advisor for patients with musculoskeletal complaints. Spine 30:2579–2584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slebus FG, Sluiter JK, Kuijer PPFM, Willems JHBM, Frings-Dresen MHW (2007) Work-ability evaluation: a piece of cake or a hard nut to crack? Disabil Rehabil 29:1295–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2008) Quality of life and illness perception in working and sick-listed chronic RSI patients. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81:495–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderberg E, Alexanderson K (2005) Gatekeepers in sickness insurance: a systematic review of the literature on practices of social insurance officers. Health Soc Care Community 13:211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soer R, van der Schans CP, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF (2008) Towards consensus in operational definitions in functional capacity evaluation: a Delphi Survey. J Occup Rehabil 18:389–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soer R, van der Schans CP, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Reneman MF (2009) Normative values for a functional capacity evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:1785–1794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Netherlands (2011) Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, in Dutch http://www.cbs.nl/nl-L/menu/methoden/toelichtingen/alfabet/a/arbeidsparticipatie1.htm. Accessed 2 Aug 2011

  • Streibelt M, Blume C, Thren K, Reneman MF, Mueller-Fahrnow W (2009) Value of functional capacity evaluation information in a clinical setting for predicting return to work. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:429–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong S, Baptiste S, Clarkec J, Colec D, Costa M (2004) Use of functional capacity evaluations in workplaces and the compensation system: a report on workers’ and report users’ perceptions. Work 23:67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • van Abbema R, Lakke SE, Reneman MF, van der Schans CP, van Haastert CJ, Geertzen JH, Wittink H (2011) Factors associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil 21:455–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • View on work (2009) Definitions of re-integration, for municipalities and re-integration companies (in Dutch)

  • Wind H (2007) Assessment of physical work ability: the utility of functional capacity evaluation for insurance physicians. University of Amsterdam, Dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  • Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2006) The utility of functional capacity evaluation: the opinion of physicians and other experts in the field of return to work disability claims. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79:528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2009a) Complementary value of functional capacity evaluation for physicians in assessing the physical work ability of workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:435–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2009b) Effect of functional capacity evaluation information on the judgment of physicians about physical work ability in the context of disability claims. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:1087–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all clients and RTW coaches of the Dutch National Institute for Employee Benefit Schemes (UWV) and RTW consultants of ‘Startbaan’ in The Hague who were willing to participate in this study. This study was funded by Institute GAK (Grant number 2006-479) and the Dutch National Institute for Employee Benefit Schemes (REF24122010).

Conflict of interest

  The authors state that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    L. W. Pas, P. P. F. M. Kuijer, H. Wind, J. K. Sluiter & M. H. W. Frings-Dresen

  2. Department of Health Sciences, Community & Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    J. W. Groothoff & S. Brouwer

Authors
  1. L. W. Pas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. P. F. M. Kuijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Wind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. K. Sluiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. W. Groothoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Brouwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. H. W. Frings-Dresen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. P. F. M. Kuijer.

Appendix: Definitions

Appendix: Definitions

Utility

information is useful if this information expands what is still unknown, or strengthens the opinion over what is already known about the judgement of the current physical work ability and/or prognosis for work participation and/or advice on RTW. The information is useful if this leads to a reduction of uncertainty (Wind 2007).

Physical work ability

the extent to which a client is able, at this time and in the near future, to perform physical activities during work (Ilmarinen et al. 2005).

Prognosis for work participation

the expectation of how long it takes for a client to actually return to work (Statistics Netherlands 2011).

Advice on return to work

the process which enables a client to return to work after illness (View on work 2009 [Blik op werk, in Dutch]).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pas, L.W., Kuijer, P.P.F.M., Wind, H. et al. Clients’ and RTW experts’ view on the utility of FCE for the assessment of physical work ability, prognosis for work participation and advice on return to work. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 87, 331–338 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-013-0865-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-013-0865-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation