ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021
Validation of the Work Disability Diagnosis Interview for Musculoskeletal and Mental Disorders.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Return to Work for People with Common Mental Disorders: Insights into the Implementation of a Collaborative Program in a Specialized Mental Health Hospital.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The Work Disability Diagnosis Interview (WoDDI) consists of a semi-structured interview designed to help clinicians systematically identify the factors contributing to a work disability. The aim was to validate two versions of the WoDDI (construct validity, internal consistency, interrater reliability) developed for individuals absent from work due to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) or common mental disorder (CMD). Methods A convenience sample of workers absent from work for at least three months due to an MSD or a CMD and enrolled in a rehabilitation program was recruited. To assess interrater reliability for the MSD and CMD versions, six occupational therapists by sub-group scored the WoDDI based on case histories. Results A total of 290 male and female workers (140 MSD, 150 CMD) were recruited. Exploratory factor analysis revealed similar dimensions in both versions, specifically, illness representation, clinical judgment of the complexity of the medical condition, and high level of work demands. It allowed items to be reduced by approximately 20 and 40% respectively for the CMD and MSD versions. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) varied from 0.40 to 0.75 and 0.75 to 0.80 for the CMD and MSD versions respectively, while interrater reliability (Cohen's kappa coefficients) varied from 0.51 to 0.57 and 0.27 to 0.44 for the two versions respectively. Conclusion Despite some limitations, the WoDDI's factors correspond to those in the current scientific literature. The varying results for internal consistency suggest limitations mainly for the CMD version. Interrater reliability was found overall to be fair. The next step will be to revise and retest this version.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32712758What 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.