The prevention of medical work disability is a health-care priority and early screening for vulnerable workers is essential.
Objective
to evaluate the external validity of a work disability risk index (WDRI) based on the worker's health status and discomfort while working.
Methods
The clinical method, WDRI, was utilized at the end of medical visits on workers who previously self-assessed their work ability using the Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire. To assess the WDRI external validity, the WDRI results were compared with those of the WAI, using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rs) and the Bland and Altman method.
Results
Both the WDRI and WAI were completed on 1480 workers. The overall correlation coefficient between WDRI/WAI was −0.63, and the rs values across the worker subgroups were similar. Thus, a high risk of work disability identified by the WDRI was correlated with a decrease of self-assessed work ability using the WAI. The concordance between WDRI and WAI was verified (98.5% had a difference of less than 1.96 SD). The discrepancies were mainly that a large proportion of workers assessed with a high work disability risk did not consider their work ability to be reduced.
Conclusion
The results suggest that the WDRI appears to be a valid tool for early identification of the risk of medical work disability. Further studies are needed to continue the validation process.
[French] Fantoni QuintonSPetitAPetitprezK, et al.Prevention of occupational disinsertion: synthesis of current data from the literature on chronic diseases. Arch Occup Dis Environ2018; 79: 236.
3.
FriedLPTangenCMWalstonJ, et al.Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol: Ser A2001; 56: M146–M157.
4.
Schröder-ButterfillE. The concept of vulnerability and its relation to fragility. In: Presses de l’École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique (EHESP) (eds) Fragility of the elderly [internet]. Rennes: Presses de l’EHESP, 2013, pp.203–228. (Excluding collection), https://www.cairn.info/la-fragilite-des-personnes-agees–9782810901234-p-203.htm.
5.
[French] AballeaPMesnil du BuissonMA. Prevention of the occupational disinsertion of sick or disabled employees, Report of the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs. Dec 2017.
6.
[French] Prevention of Occupational Disinsertion and job retention – Example in 4 European countries; eurogip.fr – Thematic note, January 2021; ref. Eurogip-158/F.
7.
TenglandPA. The concept of work ability. J Occup Rehabil2011; 21: 275–285.
BellagambaGMetgeHVillaA, et al.Members of the steering committee. Permanent unfitness for work and musculoskeletal diseases: a multicentric cross-sectional study of 2788 unfit employees. J Occup Environ Med2023; 65: e472–e477.
17.
IlmarinenJTuomiKKlockarsM. Changes in the work ability of active employees over an 11-year period. Scand J Works Health1997; 23(Suppl 1): 49–57.
18.
van den BergTIJEldersLAMde ZwartBCH, et al.The effects of work-related and individual factors on the work ability Index: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med2009; 66: 211–220.
19.
LundinALeijonOVaezM, et al.Predictive validity of the work ability Index and its individual items in the general population. Scand J Public Health2017; 45: 350–356.
20.
BurdorfAFrings-DresenMHWvan DuivenboodenC, et al.Development of a decision model to identify workers at risk of long-term disability in the construction industry. Scand J Works Health2005; 31(Suppl 2): 31–36.
21.
RoelenCAMHeymansMWTwiskJWR, et al.Work ability Index as tool to identify workers at risk of premature work exit. J Occupy Rehabil2014; 24: 747–754.
22.
ReeuwijkKGRobroekSJWNiessenMAJ, et al.The prognostic value of the work ability Index for sickness absence among office workers. Guo Y, editor. PLoS ONE2015; 10: e0126969.
23.
McCarthyGSTruxilloDMO’SheaDE, et al.The development and validation of a multidimensional perceived work ability scale. J Occup Health Psychol2024; 29: 90–112.
24.
El FassiMBocquetVMajeryN, et al.Work ability assessment in a worker population: comparison and determinants of work ability Index and work ability score. BMC Public Health2013; 13: 305.
25.
AhlstromLGrimby-EkmanAHagbergM, et al.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 Health2010; 36: 404–412.
26.
[French] XerriBFantoni-QuintonS.What are the key indicators for prevention of occupational disinsertion and retention in CPOMs? – Review article – INRS. Occupational health references #155 [Internet]. Sept 2018 [cited 21 July 2023], https://www.inrs.fr/media.html?refINRS=TM%2048.
27.
ShemtobLKhanRF. Fit for work? The relationship between health and employment will become an increasingly pressing problem. BMJ2024; 386: q1612.
28.
IlmarinenJ. The work ability Index (WAI). Occup Med2007; 57: 160–160.
29.
RadkiewiczPWiderszal-BazylM. Psychometric properties of work ability Index in the light of comparative survey study. Int Cong Ser2005; 1280: 304–309.
30.
[French] LeroyerAMurciaMChastangJF, et al.Methodology for adjusting national data from the EVREST survey. Public Health2019; 31: 645–655.
31.
[French] DelmasCPlus BureauG. Assessment of well-being at work: comparison of two measuring instruments. Arch Occup Dis Environ2007; 770: 435–604.
Strengthening of health surveillance of working populations: the use of international statistical classification of diseases (ICD-10) in occupational health [Internet]. 1998 may [cited sept 18, 2023], https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-OCH-98.1.
34.
BatesBBickleyLS. Clinical Examination Guide: 8th French edition / 13th American edition. Arnette, 2022, 1232 pp.
35.
[French] JolivetA. Painful work: the 2010 law and its uses by social actors. Revue de L’Ires2011; 70: 33–60.
36.
[French] AnastazeAKouadioVDiasC, et al.Validation study of visual analogue scale (VAS) versus general health questionnaire (GHQ) in occupational health service. Arch Occup Dis Environ2019; 80: 469–476.
37.
SpearmanC. General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. Am J Psychol1904; 15: 201–292.
38.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–310.
39.
van SaaneNSluiterJKVerbeekJHAM, et al.Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—a systematic review. Occup Med2003; 53: 191–200.
40.
SenthilselvanACoongheWVLBeachJ. Respiratory health, occupation and the healthy worker effect. Occupy Med (Lond)2020; 70: 191–199.
41.
SpierenburgEAJSmitLAMHeederikD, et al.Healthy worker survivor analysis in an occupational cohort study of Dutch agricultural workers Int Arch Occup Approx. Health2015; 88: 1165–1173.
[French] DogblaLGouvenelleCMurciaM, et al.Study of the predictors of occupational disintegration. In: Proceedings of the 56th congress of SELF, July 2022.
45.
[French] RondiAFantoni-QuintonS. Become employees after medical incapacity. Arch Occup Dis Environ2017; 78: 412–420.
46.
[French] PélissierCChauvinFFontanaL.Predictors of restricted or unfit for the previous work station on a return visit: development of a score. Occupational Health References #145 [Internet]. March 2016 [cited July 19, 2023], https://www.inrs.fr/media.html?refINRS=TF%20234.
47.
[French] FeuvrierBAccogliFRochaMD, et al.A collective approach in favor of the Prevention of Occupational Disinsertion unit. OPSAT presented at; 2022 Oct; Journées Presanse Santé-Travail.
48.
[French] GosselinELauzierM. Presenteism. When presence does not guarantee performance. French Manag J2011; 211: 15–27.
49.
[French] Hamon-CholetSLanfranchiJ.Presenteism at work. Better assessment to better prevent [the Internet]. 2019 [cited August 1, 2023], https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02170962.
50.
[French] GuyotSAptelAMartinetC, et al.Predictive aspects of a questionnaire for identifying employees at risk of occupational disinsertion: results of the first data collection. Arch Occup Dis Environ2018; 79: 403.
51.
[French] Nahum-HenrySDescathaA. Proposal for a tool for the identification of vulnerability factors of employees by the occupational health nurse. Arch Occup Dis Environ2021; 82: 216–229.
52.
KinnunenUNättiJ. Work ability score and future work ability as predictors of register-based disability pension and long-term sickness absence. Scand J Public Health2018; 46: 321–330.
