SpringerLink
Log in

Towards an ICF- and IMMPACT-Based Pain Vocational Rehabilitation Core Set in the Netherlands

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

Abstract

Background For clinical use and research of pain within the context of vocational rehabilitation, a specific core set of measurements is needed. The recommendations of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) brief Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and those of Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) cover two broad areas. These two sources can be integrated when made applicable to vocational rehabilitation and pain. Objective To develop a core set of diagnostic and evaluative measures specifically for vocational rehabilitation of patients with subacute and chronic musculoskeletal pain, while using the brief ICF core set for VR as the reference framework in VR, and the IMMPACT recommendations in the outcome measurements around pain. Methods Three main steps were taken. The first step was to remove irrelevant and duplicate domains of the brief ICF Core Set for Vocational Rehabilitation and the IMMPACT recommendations around pain. The second step was to match the remaining domains with existing instruments or measures. Instruments were proposed based on availability and its proven use in Dutch practice and based on  proof of sufficient clinimetric properties. In step 3, the preliminary VR-Pain core set was presented to 3 expert panels: proposed users, Dutch pain rehabilitation experts, and international VR experts. Results Experts agreed with the majority of the proposed domains and instruments. The final VR-Pain Core Set consists of 18 domains measured with 12 instruments. All instruments possessed basic clinimetric properties. Conclusion An agreed-upon VR-Pain Core Set with content that covers relevant domains for pain and VR and validated instruments measuring these domains has been developed. The VR-Pain Core Set may be used for regular clinical purposes and research in the field of vocational rehabilitation and pain, but adaptations should be considered for use outside the Netherlands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reid KJ, Harker J, Bala MM, Truyers C, Kellen E, Bekkering GE, et al. Epidemiology of chronic non-cancer pain in Europe: narrative review of prevalence, pain treatments and pain impact. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(2):449–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bekkering GE, Bala MM, Reid K, Kellen E, Harker J, Riemsma R, et al. Epidemiology of chronic pain and its treatment in The Netherlands. Neth J Med. 2011;69(3):141–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Anema JR, Schellart AJ, Cassidy JD, Loisel P, Veerman TJ, van der Beek AJ. Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(4):419–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, Vos T, et al. Measuring the global burden of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):155–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Norlund A, Ropponen A, Alexanderson K. Multidisciplinary interventions: review of studies of return to work after rehabilitation for low back pain. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(3):115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, et al. Chapter 4 European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 2):S192–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen IB, Busch H, Bodin L, Hagberg J, Nygren A, Bergstrom G. Cost effectiveness of two rehabilitation programmes for neck and back pain patients: a seven year follow-up. Pain. 2009;142(3):202–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Escorpizo R, Reneman MF, Ekholm J, Fritz J, Krupa T, Marnetoft SU, et al. A conceptual definition of vocational rehabilitation based on the ICF: building a shared global model. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):126–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Finger ME, Escorpizo R, Glassel A, Gmunder HP, Luckenkemper M, Chan C, et al. ICF core set for vocational rehabilitation: results of an international consensus conference. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(5):429–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2003;106(3):337–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Revicki D, Harding G, Burke LB, Cella D, et al. Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain. 2008;137(2):276–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH. Assessment of functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system in the context of work, daily living, and sport: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):253–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, McDonnell J, Krabbe PF, van Busschbach JJ. Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005;149(28):1574–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bieleman HJ, Reneman MF, van Ittersum MW, van der Schans CP, Groothoff JW, Oosterveld FGJ. Self-reported functional status as predictor of observed functional capacity in subjects with early osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: a diagnostic study in the CHECK cohort. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(4):345–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lamers LM, Meerding WJ, Severens JL, Brouwer WB. The relationship between productivity and health-related quality of life: an empirical exploration in persons with low back pain. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):805–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, Dellve L. 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 Health. 2010;36(5):404–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Koopmanschap M, Meerding WJ, Evers S, Severens J, Burdorf A, Brouwer W. Productivity and disease questionnaire-PRODISQ. 2.1st ed. Rotterdam: Erasmus University; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tait RC, Chibnall JT. Factor structure of the pain disability index in workers compensation claimants with low back injuries. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(6):1141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Soer R, Reneman MF, Vroomen PC, Stegeman P, Coppes MH. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important change of the pain disability index in patients with chronic back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(8):711–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ. 1993;2(3):217–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Zee Kvd, Sanderman R. Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36, een handleiding. 2nd ed. Groningen, The Netherlands: RuG, research institute SHARE; 2012.

  26. Vendrig A. De vragenlijst arbeidsreïntegratie. Diagnostiek-Wijzer. 2005;8:27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Soer R, van der Schans CP, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, et al. Normative values for a functional capacity evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1785–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gross DP, Battie MC. Construct validity of a kinesiophysical functional capacity evaluation administered within a worker’s compensation environment. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(4):287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Keller A, Hellesnes J, Brox JI. Reliability of the isokinetic trunk extensor test, Biering-Sorensen test, and Astrand bicycle test: assessment of intraclass correlation coefficient and critical difference in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(7):771–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hodselmans AP, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, van der Schans CP. Exercise capacity in non-specific chronic low back pain patients: a lean body mass-based Astrand bicycle test; reliability, validity and feasibility. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(3):282–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bruce RA, Kusumi F, Hosmer D. Maximal oxygen intake and nomographic assessment of functional aerobic impairment in cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J. 1973;85(4):546–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bouwmans C, De Jong K, Timman R, Hakkaart-Van Roijen L. Feasibility and validity of the TiC-P. Value Health. 2011;14(7):A426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;28(8):13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gronblad M, Hupli M, Wennerstrand P, Jarvinen E, Lukinmaa A, Kouri JP, et al. Intercorrelation and test–retest reliability of the pain disability index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. Clin J Pain. 1993;9(3):189–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cleland JA, Childs JD, Whitman JM. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index and numeric pain rating scale in patients with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(1):69–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(10):831–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Reneman MF, Dijkstra PU, Westmaas M, Goeken LN. Test–retest reliability of lifting and carrying in a 2-day functional capacity evaluation. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(4):269–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. van Abbema R, Lakke SE, Reneman MF, van der Schans CP, van Haastert CJ, Geertzen JH, et al. Factors associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):455–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nordrehaug JE, Danielsen R, Stangeland L, Rosland GA, Vik-Mo H. Respiratory gas exchange during treadmill exercise testing: reproducibility and comparison of different exercise protocols. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1991;51(7):655–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Minnock P, Kirwan J, Bresnihan B. Fatigue is a reliable, sensitive and unique outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2009;48:1533–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the input of all responders. The following responders have granted permission to acknowledge them: Pain rehabilitation experts: Karlein Schreurs, Rita Schiphorst Preuper, Albere Köke, Sylvia Remerie. Prospective users: Peter van der Wurff, Martin Smeulers, Loes Swaan, Levijn Romp, Claire Tilmans, Sieger de Vries, Marleen ter Haar. VR experts: Alex Burdorf, Debra Homa, Sven-Uno Marnetoft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9750 RA Haren, P.O. Box 30.002, Groningen, The Netherlands

    M. F. Reneman & T. T. Beemster

  2. Department of Research and Development, and Institute of Vocational Assessment and Education, Heliomare Rehabilitation Center, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands

    T. T. Beemster, M. J. A. Edelaar, J. M. van Velzen & C. van Bennekom

  3. Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    T. T. Beemster & J. M. van Velzen

  4. Swiss Paraplegic Research (SPF), Nottwil, Switzerland

    R. Escorpizo

  5. ICF Research Branch in cooperation with the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Family of International Classifications in Germany (at DIMDI), Nottwil, Switzerland

    R. Escorpizo

  6. Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne and SPF, Nottwil, Switzerland

    R. Escorpizo

  7. Department of Physical Therapy, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA

    R. Escorpizo

Authors
  1. M. F. Reneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. T. Beemster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. J. A. Edelaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. M. van Velzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. van Bennekom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Escorpizo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. F. Reneman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reneman, M.F., Beemster, T.T., Edelaar, M.J.A. et al. Towards an ICF- and IMMPACT-Based Pain Vocational Rehabilitation Core Set in the Netherlands. J Occup Rehabil 23, 576–584 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9423-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9423-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation