Risk assessment for prolonged sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders: protocol for a prospective cohort study

Anne Therese Tveter, Britt Elin Øiestad, Tarjei Langseth Rysstad, Fiona Aanesen, Alexander Tingulstad, Milada Cvancarova Småstuen, Margreth Grotle, Anne Therese Tveter, Britt Elin Øiestad, Tarjei Langseth Rysstad, Fiona Aanesen, Alexander Tingulstad, Milada Cvancarova Småstuen, Margreth Grotle

Abstract

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders are the leading cause of sickness absence and disability pension in Norway. There is strong evidence that long-term sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders are associated with a reduced probability of return to work (RTW). A way to meet the economic and resource-demanding challenges related to individual follow-up of this group is to identify and treat those individuals with a high risk of prolonged sickness. The overall purposes of this project are 1) to determine the most accurate screening tool to identify people at a high risk of prolonged sickness absence due to an musculoskeletal disorder, and 2) to investigate severity of musculoskeletal health, health-related quality-of-life, health care utilization, and costs across different risk profiles in people on sick leave due to a musculoskeletal disorder.

Methods: People older than 18 years of age on sick leave for at least 4 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder will be invited to participate in this prospective observational cohort study conducted within the Norwegian Welfare and Labor Administration (NAV) system in collaboration with OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University. The main outcome is sickness absence, obtained from the NAV registry. Data on sickness absence will be retrieved prospectively in the period from study inclusion to 12 months follow-up, and retrospectively 12 months before inclusion in the study. Possible risk factors will be self-reported by the participants at inclusion while health care utilization will be retrieved from registry data. To conduct analyses including 15 to 20 predictor variables, we aim at including 500-600 people on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders.

Discussion: This study may provide tools that can be used to identify individuals with high risk of prolonged sickness absence and may thus be important from both a socioeconomic and individual perspective. Further, the study may give valuable insight into identification of sickness absence profiles and the associations between these profiles and musculoskeletal health status, health-related quality of life and costs.

Trial registration: Retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04196634, 27.11.2019).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the recruitment procedure. Flow chart of the recruitment procedure for people on sick leave due to a musculoskeletal condition, recruited through the Norwegian Welfare and Labour Administration (NAV)

References

    1. Hoy DG, Smith E, Cross M, Sanchez-Riera L, Buchbinder R, Blyth FM, et al. The global burden of musculoskeletal conditions for 2010: an overview of methods. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):982–989. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204344.
    1. GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet (London, England). 2016;388(10053):1545–602.
    1. Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(9):646–656.
    1. Statistics Norway . Flest til fastlegen på grunn av muskel- og skjelettlidelser. 2018.
    1. Ihlebaek C, Laerum E. Hits most, costs most and gets least. TidsskrNor Laegeforen. 2010;130(21):2106. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.10.1035.
    1. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Sykefraværsstatistikk 2018. Available from: . Accessed 12 June 2019.
    1. Breivik H, Eisenberg E, O'Brien T. The individual and societal burden of chronic pain in Europe: the case for strategic prioritisation and action to improve knowledge and availability of appropriate care. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1229. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1229.
    1. Waddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and well-being? London: The Stationery Office; 2006.
    1. Waddell G, Burton AK. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work: evidence review. Occup Med (Oxford, England) 2001;51(2):124–135. doi: 10.1093/occmed/51.2.124.
    1. 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, socioeconomic, and physical predictors. Spine. 1998;23(16):1775–1783. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199808150-00010.
    1. Hagen KB, Thune O. Work incapacity from low back pain in the general population. Spine. 1998;23(19):2091–2095. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199810010-00010.
    1. Hedlund M, Landstad B, Wendelborg C. Challenges in disability Management of Long-Term Sick Workers. Int J Disabil Manag. 2007;2(2):47–56. doi: 10.1375/jdmr.2.2.47.
    1. Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, et al. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiroprac Manual Ther. 2016;24(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s12998-016-0113-z.
    1. Aasdahl L, Pape K, Vasseljen O, Johnsen R, Fimland MS. Improved expectations about length of sick leave during occupational rehabilitation is associated with increased work participation. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(3):475–482. doi: 10.1007/s10926-018-9808-4.
    1. Hill JC, Whitehurst DG, Lewis M, Bryan S, Dunn KM, Foster NE, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England) 2011;378(9802):1560–1571. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60937-9.
    1. Linton SJ, Nicholas M, MacDonald S. Development of a short form of the Orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire. Spine. 2011;36(22):1891–1895. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f8f775.
    1. Hill JC, Afolabi EK, Lewis M, Dunn KM, Roddy E, van der Windt DA, et al. Does a modified STarT Back tool predict outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients than back pain? A secondary analysis of cohort data. BMJ Open. 2016;6(10):e012445. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012445.
    1. Hill JC, Kang S, Benedetto E, Myers H, Blackburn S, Smith S, et al. Development and initial cohort validation of the Arthritis Research UK musculoskeletal health questionnaire (MSK-HQ) for use across musculoskeletal care pathways. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e012331. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012331.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–3191. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
    1. Bouwmans C, Krol M, Brouwer W, Severens JL, Koopmanschap MA, Hakkaart L. IMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (IPCQ) Value Health. 2014;17(7):A550. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.1791.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Ilmarinen J. The work ability index (WAI) Occup Med. 2007;57:160. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqm008.
    1. Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Mullis R, Main CJ, Foster NE, et al. A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(5):632–641. doi: 10.1002/art.23563.
    1. Campbell P, Hill JC, Protheroe J, Afolabi EK, Lewis M, Beardmore R, et al. Keele aches and pains study protocol: validity, acceptability, and feasibility of the Keele STarT MSK tool for subgrouping musculoskeletal patients in primary care. J Pain Res. 2016;9:807–818. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S116614.
    1. Nicolas MK, Costa DSJ, Linton SJ, Main CJ, Shaw WS, Pearce R, et al. Predicting return to work in a heterogeneous sample of recently injured workers using the brief ÖMPSQ-SF. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(2):295–302.
    1. Hubertsson J, Englund M, Hallgarde U, Lidwall U, Lofvendahl S, Petersson IF. Sick leave patterns in common musculoskeletal disorders--a study of doctor prescribed sick leave. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:176. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-176.
    1. Brendbekken R, Vaktskjold A, Harris A, Tangen T. Predictors of return-to-work in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a randomized clinical trial. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50(2):193–199. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2296.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
    1. Aasdahl L, Foldal VS, Standal MI, Hagen R, Johnsen R, Solbjor M, et al. Motivational interviewing in long-term sickness absence: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial followed by qualitative and economic studies. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):756. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5686-0.
    1. Muthen B. Latent variable analysis: growth mixture modelling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In: Kaplan D, editor. Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage; 2004.
    1. Aasdahl L, Pape K, Vasseljen O, Johnsen R, Gismervik S, Halsteinli V, et al. Effect of inpatient multicomponent occupational rehabilitation versus less comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation on sickness absence in persons with musculoskeletal- or mental health disorders: a randomized clinical trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(1):170–179. doi: 10.1007/s10926-017-9708-z.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe