Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic Factors for Successful Work Functioning in the General Working Population

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose To help workers to stay at work in a healthy productive and sustainable way and for the development of interventions to improve work functioning, it is important to have insight in prognostic factors for successful work functioning. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic factors for successful work functioning in a general working population. Methods A longitudinal study (3 months follow-up) was conducted among the working population (N = 98). Work functioning was assessed with the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ). The total score was categorized as follows: 0–90; >90 ≤95; and >95–100 (defined as ‘successful work functioning’). Ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine bivariate relationships between potential prognostic factors and the dependent variable (successful work functioning) to identify potential prognostic factors for the multivariate models (p < 0.10). A stepwise approach was used to introduce the variables in the multiple ordinal regression analyses. Results Baseline work functioning and work ability were significant prognostic factors for successful work functioning at 3 months follow-up. No prospective associations were identified for psychological job demands and supervisor social support with successful work functioning. Conclusion To our knowledge this is the first longitudinal study to identify prognostic factors for successful work functioning in the general working population. High work ability is predictive for future successful work functioning, independent of baseline work functioning.

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

  1. Jagger C, Gillies C, Moscone F, Cambois E, Van OH, Nusselder W, et al. Inequalities in healthy life years in the 25 countries of the European Union in 2005: a cross-national meta-regression analysis. Lancet. 2008;372:2124–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lerner D, Henke RM. What does research tell us about depression, job performance, and work productivity? J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50:401–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Erickson SR, Guthrie S, Vanetten-Lee M, Himle J, Hoffman J, Santos SF, et al. Severity of anxiety and work-related outcomes of patients with anxiety disorders. Depress Anxiety. 2009;26:1165–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van den Heuvel SG, Geuskens GA, Hooftman WE, Koppes LL, van den Bossche SN. Productivity loss at work; health-related and work-related factors. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:331–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Amick BC, III, Gimeno D. Measuring work outcomes with a focus on health-related work productivity loss. In: Wittink H, Carr D, editors. Pain management: evidence, outcomes, and quality of life: a sourcebook. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 329–43.

  6. Abma FI, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U. The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch Version): examination of its reliability, validity and responsiveness in the general working population. J Occup Rehabil. 2012.

  7. Wynne-Jones G, Buck R, Varnava A, Phillips CJ, Main CJ. Impacts on work performance; what matters 6 months on?. Occup Med (Lond) 2011; 61:205–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Amick BC III, Habeck RV, Ossmann J, Fossel AH, Keller R, Katz JN. Predictors of successful work role functioning after carpal tunnel release surgery. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:490–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lerner D, Adler DA, Rogers WH, Chang H, Lapitsky L, McLaughlin T, et al. Work performance of employees with depression: the impact of work stressors. Am J Health Promot. 2010;24:205–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. VSNU. Gedragscode voor gebruik van persoonsgegevens in wetenschappelijk onderzoek (Code of Behavior for using Personal Data in Scientific Research). Available at the website of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands: www.vsnu.nl, 2005.

  11. Abma FI, Amick BC, 3rd, Brouwer S, van der Klink JJL, Bültmann U. The cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire to Dutch. Work J Prev Assess Rehabil 2012; 43:203–10.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey. Lincoln: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1994;38:383–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Beurskens AJ, Bultmann U, Kant I, Vercoulen JH, Bleijenberg G, Swaen GM. Fatigue among working people: validity of a questionnaire measure. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57:353–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vercoulen JH, Alberts M, Blijenberg G. De Checklist Individual Strength (CIS). Gedragstherapie. 1999;32:131–6.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huibers MJ, Kant IJ, Knottnerus JA, Bleijenberg G, Swaen GM, Kasl SV. Development of the chronic fatigue syndrome in severely fatigued employees: predictors of outcome in the Maastricht cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:877–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karasek RA. Job Content Questionnaire and Users’s Guide. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 1985.

  19. Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24:285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Karasek Job Content Questionnaire. Washington, DC: APA/NIOSH Conference on Work, Stress and Health; 1995.

  21. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:701–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Test manual for the Utrecht work engagement scale. 2003. (Available at http://www.schaufeli.com).

  23. Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A, Katajarinne L, Tulkki A. Work ability index. In: Rautoja S, Pietiläinen R, editors. Finland: K-Print Oy Vantaa, Finnish Institue of Occupational Health; 1998.

  24. Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, Dellve L. The work ability index and single-item question: associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health—a prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36:404–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Statistics Netherlands. StatLine database. Available at: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb. [Accessed June 2012].

  26. Hansen JA, Feuerstein M, Calvio LC, Olsen CH. Breast cancer survivors at work. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50:777–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Munir F, Jones D, Leka S, Griffiths A. Work limitations and employer adjustments for employees with chronic illness. Int J Rehabil Res. 2005;28:111–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lammers J. Categorische data analyse met SPSS: inleiding in loglineaire analysetechnieken. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Amick B, Kasl S. Work stress. In: McDonald C, editor. Epidemiology of work related diseases. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2000. p. 283–308.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, Wester LM, Burke TA. The Work Limitations Questionnaire’s validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:197–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dwyer CA. Cut scores and testing: statistics, judgment, truth, and error. Psychol Assess. 1996;8:360–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:19–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by Stichting Instituut Gak, the Netherlands. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no declaration of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Femke I. Abma, Jac J. L. van der Klink & Ute Bültmann

  2. Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Benjamin C. Amick III

  3. Health Science Center at Houston, University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA

    Benjamin C. Amick III

  4. Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, FA10, Room 610, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Femke I. Abma

Authors
  1. Femke I. Abma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin C. Amick III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jac J. L. van der Klink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ute Bültmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Femke I. Abma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abma, F.I., Amick, B.C., van der Klink, J.J.L. et al. Prognostic Factors for Successful Work Functioning in the General Working Population. J Occup Rehabil 23, 162–169 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9410-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9410-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation