Upper Limb Absence: Predictors of Work Participation and Work Productivity

Postema, Sietke G; Bongers, Raoul M.; Brouwers, Michael A H; Burger, Helena; Norling-Hermansson, Liselotte M.; Reneman, Michiel F.; Dijkstra, Pieter U.; Sluis, Corry K. van der

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.12.022

Cited by 25 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… NA not available a Low = no education/primary school, medium = secondary school/vocational school, high = college/university; 1 missing from Postema et al (1%) b 1 missing (2%) c 2 missing (4%) d 4 missing (7%) e 3 missing (6%) f Data were kindly provided by Postema et al [ 17 ] …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… UEWD 2 was excluded, as it was not evaluated by Postema et al [ 17 ], extraction method: principal axis factoring, rotation method: promax with Kaiser normalization UEWD upper extremity work demands a Factor loadings > .40 appear in bold b Included items: UEWD 1, 3, 5 and 7 c Included items: UEWD 4, 6 and 8 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be able to assess structural validity by using factor analysis, a historical database of UEWD data from 74 workers were added [ 17 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For factor analysis it is suggested to include 7 subjects per item, with a minimum of 100 subjects [ 19 ]. Therefore 74 UEWD scores from a historical cohort [ 17 ] were added to the self-reported UEWD scores. The ‘lift, push, pull or carry very heavy loads (>25 kg)’ item was not taken into account in the factor analysis, since this item was not collected in the historical cohort [ 14 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale. Methods Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test–retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Results Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10–25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that ‘force and posture’ and ‘repetition’ subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach’s alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test–retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items. Conclusion Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be able to assess structural validity by using factor analysis, a historical database of UEWD data from 74 workers were added [ 17 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To determine the influence of the hand grips and the ROM of the wrist on the presence of MSCs, it is recommended to measure these with an objective, standardised method. Furthermore, the control data of this study have been partially used in two earlier studies [13,38]. However, this control group seems to be a good representation of the prevalence of MSCs in the general population of the Netherlands [30].…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal complaints in individuals with finger or partial hand amputations in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study

Bouma

Postema

Bongers

et al. 2017

Disability and Rehabilitation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints (MSCs) in individuals with finger or partial hand amputations (FPHAs) with a control group and to explore the effect and predictors of MSCs in individuals with FPHAs. Method: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted. The primary outcome measures were: prevalence of MSCs, health status, pain-related disability, physical work demands, work productivity, and hand function. Results: The response rate was 61%. A comparable proportion of individuals with FPHAs (n ¼ 99) and controls (n ¼ 102) reported MSCs in the preceding 4 weeks (33% vs. 28%, respectively) or in the preceding year (37% vs. 33%, respectively). Individuals with FPHAs with MSCs experienced more pain than controls with MSCs. Regular occurrence of stump sensations and self-reported limited range of motion (ROM) of the wrist of the affected limb were predictors for MSCs in individuals with FPHAs. Conclusions: The prevalence of MSCs was comparable in individuals with FPHAs and controls. However, clinicians should pay special attention to the risk of developing MSCs in patients with stump sensations and limited ROM of the wrist of the affected limb. Future research should focus on the role of wrist movements and compensatory movements in the development of MSCs in individuals with FPHAs. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints (MSCs) in individuals with finger or partial hand amputations (FPHAs) and control subjects was similar. Regular occurrence of stump sensations and limited range of motion of the wrist of the affected limb were predictors of developing MSCs in individuals with FPHAs. Clinicians should pay special attention to individuals with FPHAs with the presence of these predictors of developing MSCs. For a better understanding of the development of and treatment options for MSCs, future research focusing on the role of wrist function in the development of MSCs in individuals with FPHAs is necessary. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Factors influencing perceived function in the upper limb prosthesis user population

Zhang

Baun

Trent

et al. 2021

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to evaluate perceived capacity of an individual in executing tasks in a natural environment with their prosthetic device. According to the World Health Organization International Classification of Health, Functioning, and Disability (ICF) models, there may be specific factors of a person, factors of assistive prosthetic technology, or factors related to the health condition or body function that affect their functioning and disability. However, an understanding of factors affecting an upper limb prosthesis user's perception of their ability to execute tasks in a natural environment is not well established. Objective: To use the ICF model to identify which health condition-related, body function, environmental, and personal factors influence activity as measured by perceived function in the upper limb prosthesis user population. Design: Quantitative clinical descriptive study. Setting: Clinical offices within outpatient private practice (removed for blinding). Participants: A sample of 101 participants with upper limb amputation who use a prosthetic device and were undergoing a prosthesis fitting process. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: PROs on pain with/without a prosthesis, satisfaction, and perceived function derived from the Comprehensive Arm Prosthesis and Rehabilitation Outcomes Questionnaire. Results: Model coefficients indicate that with a unit increase in satisfaction (p < .001) and pain (p = .031) scores (with higher pain scores signifying less pain), the mean of perceived function increases by 0.66 and 0.47 units, respectively. Conversely, for individuals with elbow disarticulation, transhumeral, shoulder disarticulation, and interscapulothoracic amputations, the mean of perceived function decreases by 22.02 units (p = .006). Conclusions: Based on our sample, perceived function is significantly associated with satisfaction, pain, and amputation level. These findings could potentially help to inform initial clinical approach and targeted outcomes for patients based on these factors.

show abstract

Upper Limb Absence: Predictors of Work Participation and Work Productivity

Cited by 25 publications

References 22 publications

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

Validity and Reliability of the Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale

Musculoskeletal complaints in individuals with finger or partial hand amputations in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study

Factors influencing perceived function in the upper limb prosthesis user population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About