ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2014
Predicting improvement of functioning in disability claimants.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of prognosis by physicians involved in work disability evaluation: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) to French: A Valid and Reliable Instrument to Assess Work Functioning.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2019Observational
- Expectations from different perspectives on future work outcome of young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the Netherlands, disability claimants are assessed after 2 years of sick leave, but their functioning may still improve. An accurate prognosis of functioning is difficult. Self predictions may be more accurate than those of professionals. The aim of this study, is to assess and compare the accuracy of predictions by disability claimants and insurance physicians (IPs) working at the Social Security Institute. It is further studied whether the accuracy differs between subgroups of claimants with mental or somatic health conditions.
methodsWe used data from the prospective cohort study cohort study. Following the assessment of the disability claim (n = 375) and after 1 year follow up (T1, n = 276) data on functioning were obtained from respondents by self-report questionnaire World Health Organization Disability Schedule 2.0. Both claimants and IPs were asked to predict improvement of functioning. Accuracy of their predictions were assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curves (AUC). Mixed logistic regression was conducted to explore differences in accuracy between claimants with mental and somatic conditions.
resultsOne-third (32 %) of disability claimants improved beyond the standard error of measurement. Disability claimants' and IPs were able to predict this improvement of functioning, but to a limited extent, with an AUC of 0.61 for IPs and 0.62 for disability claimants. We found no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of the predictions in claimants with mental or somatic health conditions.
conclusionsImprovements of functioning were not uncommon. However, both IPs and disability claimants were unable to predict improvement with high levels of accuracy in both mental and somatic health conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24026339What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.