Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does knowledge of a patient's workers' compensation status influence clinical judgments?

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

Abstract

It is generally acknowledged that compensation payments (WCB) influence rehabilitation outcome in a negative manner. Patients receiving WCB have more treatment over a longer time period than their non compensated (NWCB) cohorts. It is not clear whether therapists (PT) perceive WCB clients as being more impaired and expect them to have a worse outcome than clients without WCB. The purpose of this study was to determine whether PTs' clinical judgments are influenced by the knowledge of a patients WCB status and whether this knowledge influences their assessment findings or prognostic judgments. A convenience sample of 69 physical therapists (PTs) participated. Each PT viewed three videotaped assessments, of patients with low back pain (LBP) that differed in severity. The PT was provided with a brief history of the patient. Included in the history was a statement that the patient was (WCB group), or was not (NWCB group) in receipt of workers compensation benefits (WCB). The third group of PTs was given no information (control group) about the patient. PTs recorded physical assessment findings and made prognostic judgments about the patients. Data for the physical assessment findings and prognoses recorded by the PTs was analyzed across information groups using ANOVA. Knowledge of compensation status did not influence the PTs' physical assessment findings but did influence prognostic judgments. WCB status was deemed to have a negative effect on outcome in patients with mild LBP. Additionally, NWCB status was deemed to have a positive influence on outcome in patients with severe LBP. The differences were most marked in the short term (1 month). It was concluded that PTs expectations of outcome are influenced by prior knowledge of compensation status.

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. Haldeman S. Presidential Address, North American Spine Society: Failure of the pathology model to predict back pain.Spine 1990; 15(7): 718–724.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh NE, Dumitru D. Financial compensation and recovery from low back pain.Spine: State of the Art Rev 1987; 2(1): 109–121.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Snook SH, Jensen RC. Cost. In: Pope MH, Frymoyer JW, Andersson G, eds.Occupational low back pain. New York: Praeger, 1984, pp. 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jette AM, Smith K, Haley SM, Davis KD. Physical therapy episodes of care for patients with low back pain.Phys Ther 1994; 74: 101–115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dworkin RH, Handlin DS, Richlin DM, Brand L, Vannucci C. Unraveling the effects of compensation, litigation and treatment response in chronic pain.Pain 1985; 23: 49–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pither CE, Nicholas MK. The identification of iatrogenic factors in the development of chronic pain syndromes: abnormal treatment behaviour? In: Bond MR, Charlton JE, Woolf CJ, eds.Proceedings of the VIth congress on pain. Netherlands; Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991, pp. 429–434.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor LT, Twomey JR. Preface. In: Twomey LT, Taylor JR, eds.Physical therapy of the low back. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1987, p. xi.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Leavitt F. The physical exertion factor in compensable work injuries. A hidden flaw in previous research.Spine 1992; 17(3): 307–310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rossi U, Pernak J. Low back pain: The facet syndrome. In: Lipton, ed.Advances in pain research and therapy, Vol. 13. New York: Raven Press, 1990; pp. 231–244.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Waddell G. A new clinical model for the treatment of low back pain. In: Weinstein JN, Weisel SW, eds.The lumbar spine. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1990; pp. 38–56.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Frymoyer JW, Gordon SL. Research perspectives in low back pain. Report of a 1988 workshop.Spine 1989; 14(12): 1384–1389.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bigos SJ, Battie MC, Spengler DM,et al. A prospective study of work perceptions and psychosocial factors affecting the report of back injury.Spine 1991; 16(1): 1–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deyo RA, Tsui-Wu YJ. Functional disability due to back pain. A population-based study indicating the importance of socioeconomic factors.Arthr Rheum 1987; 30(11): 1247–1253.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harkapaa K, Jarvikoski A, Mellin G, Hurri H, Luoma J. Health locus of control beliefs and psychological distress as predictors for treatment outcome in low back pain patients: Results of a three-month follow-up of a controlled intervention study.Pain 1991; 46: 35–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peat M. Physiotherapy; art or science?Physiother Can 1981; 33(3): 170–176.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Basmajian JV. Research or retrench. The rehabilitation professions challenged.Phys Ther 1975; 55(6): 607–610.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Simmonds MJ, Kumar S. Pain and the placebo in rehabilitation using TENS and laser.Disab. Rehab 1994; 16(1): 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Voudouris NJ, Peck CL, Coleman G. The role of conditioning and verbal expectancy in the placebo response.Pain 1990; 43: 121–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Melzack R, Katz J, Jeans ME. The role of compensation in chronic pain: Analysis using a new method of scoring the McGill Pain Questionnaire.Pain 1985; 23: 101–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Krusen EM, Ford DE. Compensation factor in low back injuries. JAMA 1958; 166: 1128–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leavitt F. Pain and deception: Use of verbal pain measurement as a diagnostic aid in differentiating between clinical and simulated low back pain.J Psychosomat Res 1985; 29(5): 495–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hendler N. Malingering-A conscious attempt to deceive. In:Diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of chronic pain. Hendler N, ed. New York: Raven Press, 1981, p. 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.Spine 1983; 8(2): 141–144.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. American Medical Association, Milwaukee, 1990, pp. 96–101.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ashton B, Piper MC, Warren S, Stewin L, Byrne P. Influence of medical history on assessment of at-risk infants.Devel Med Child Neurol 1991; 33: 412–418.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Illich I. The epidemics of modern medicine. In: Black L,et al., eds.Health and disease. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy, Texas Woman's University, Houston, Texas

    Maureen Simmonds

  2. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta

    Shrawan Kumar

Authors
  1. Maureen Simmonds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shrawan Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simmonds, M., Kumar, S. Does knowledge of a patient's workers' compensation status influence clinical judgments?. J Occup Rehab 6, 93–107 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02110385

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02110385

Key words

Search

Navigation