Appendix 3.D: Measurement Tool Information Sheets

Organizational Factor: Job strain
Job Content Questionnaire (Overall value : ☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Job strain is assessed by two factors (14 items) in the Job Content Questionnaire. Job strain occurs when psychological demands are high and the degree of decision latitude is low.
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses √; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 2/4): Administration time Ø; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation Ø; Accessibility Ø.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available. It should be requested from the JCQ Center in Denmark by phone (+45 40461000) or email (jcqcenter@oresundsynergy.com). Access is free of charge in the vast majority of cases, but costs may be charged for research and commercial projects	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSDs and CMDs Language: 22 languages, including French (Canadian version) and English Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 7 min – Simple: no (complex mathematical formulas, reversed items, and information on interpretation standards not available) Interpretation of scores: Interpretation standards are given with the questionnaire once the application is accepted.
References: Brisson, C., Blanchette, C., Guimont, C., Dion, G., Moisan, J., Vézina, M., . . . Masse, L. (2007). Reliability and validity of the French version of the 18-item Karasek job content questionnaire. Work & Stress, 12(4), 322-336. Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job Content Questionnaire and user’s guide (revision 1.1). Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts Lowell, The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) Center. Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P. et Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 322-355. Niedhammer, I., Ganem, V., Gendrey, L., David, S. et Degioanni, S. (2006). Propriétés psychométriques de la version française des échelles de la demande psychologique, de la latitude décisionnelle et du soutien social du « Job Content Questionnaire » de Karasek : résultats de l’enquête nationale SUMER. Santé Publique, 18(3), 413-427.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Organizational factor: Physical overload at work (back pain)
Single question (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: For workers with back pain, Physical overload at work is assessed with a single question from the Psychosocial Assessment Instrument
Scientific criteria (score: 2/4): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The question is available in Reme et al. (2009). Here’s the question: Do you work in positions involving constant strain to the back? Response scale: Likert: 1= Almost all the time, 2= About ¾ of the time, 3= About half the time, 4= About ¼ of the time, 5 = Very little, 6= No/never. Scoring instructions: None	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD (back pain) Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Constant strain on the back more than half the time (scores 1 to 3) indicates physical overload at work, which has a negative impact on RTW.
References: Reme, S. E., Hagen, E. M., & Eriksen, H. R. (2009). Expectations, perceptions, and physiotherapy predict prolonged sick leave in subacute low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 10, 139.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Organizational factor: Physical overload at work
Single question (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: Physical overload at work is assessed with a single question
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The question is available in Hara et al. (2018). Here’s the question: Is your work very physically demanding? Response scale: Likert: 1= Not at all, 2= A little, 3- Quite a bit, 4= Much. Scoring instructions: None	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: High scores (3 or 4) indicate physical overload at work, which has a negative impact on RTW.
References: Hara, K. W., Bjorngaard, J. H., Jacobsen, H. B., Borchgrevink, P. C., Johnsen, R., Stiles, T. C., . . . Woodhouse, A. (2018). Biopsychosocial predictors and trajectories of work participation after transdiagnostic occupational rehabilitation of participants with mental and somatic disorders: a cohort study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1014. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5803-0
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Organizational factor: Physical overload at work
Non-validated questionnaire (3 items) (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: Physical overload at work is assessed using a 3-item questionnaire that has not been validated for a study.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The questionnaire is described in Hansson & Hansson (2000). Here are the three items in question: (1) Working in twisted positions (2) Working in the same position during a prolonged time (3) Heavy lifts Response scale: Likert: 1= High physical demands to 4= Low physical demands. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 3 items, giving an average score ranging from 1 to 4.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD (back pain) Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A lower score indicates physical overload at work, which has a negative impact on RTW.
References: Hansson, T. H., & Hansson, E. K. (2000). The effects of common medical interventions on pain, back function, and work resumption in patients with chronic low back pain: A prospective 2-year cohort study in six countries. Spine, 25(23), 3055-3064.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Organizational factor: Physical overload at work
Physical effort » subscale of the Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work (4 items) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Physical overload at work is assessed using a 4-item subscale of the Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work (QEAW). The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called « Physical effort ”.
Scientific criteria (score: 3/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) Ö; Convergent validity X; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity Ø.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The questionnaire is available in Lequeurre et coll. (2013). Here are the 4 items in question: (1) In your work, wouldare you be seriously bothered by having to lift or move loads? (2) In your work, wouldare you be seriously bothered by frequently having to bend down? (3) In your work, wouldare you be seriously bothered by regularly having to reach up too high? (4) In your work, wouldare you be seriously bothered by having to do the same movements continuously for a long period of time? Response scale: Likert: 1= Never to 7= Always. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 4 items, giving an average score ranging from 1 to 7.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Van Veldhoven & Meijman, 1994) and French (Lequeurre et al. 2013). Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score would mean physical overload at work, which would potentially have a negative impact on RTW. Although there are no studies demonstrating the predictive value of RTW for this question, our research team would recommend intervention if the mean score is ≥ 5.
References: Adapted from : Lequeurre, J., Gillet, N., Ragot, C., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). Validation of a French questionnaire to measure job demands and resources. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 26(4), 93-124. Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA). van Veldhoven, M. J., & Sluiter, J. K. (2009). Work-related recovery opportunities: testing scale properties and validity in relation to health. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 82(9), 1065-1075.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Organizational factor: Physical overload at work
« Physical demands » subscale of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) (3 items) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Physical overload at work is assessed using a 4-item subscale of the Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work (QEAW). The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called « Physical effort ”.
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity Ø.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The questionnaire is available in Morgeson et al. (2006). Here are the 3 items in question: (1) The job would requires a great deal of my muscular endurance. (2) The job would requires a great deal of my muscular strength. (3) The job would requires a lot of physical effort. Response scale: Likert: 1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 3 items, giving an average score ranging from 1 to 5.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Morgeson et al., 2006) and French (Bigot et al. 2014) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score would mean physical overload at work, which would potentially have a negative impact on RTW. Although there are no studies demonstrating the predictive value of RTW for this question, our research team would recommend intervention if the mean score is ≥ 4.
References: Adapted from: Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J Appl Psychol, 91(6), 1321-1339. Bigot, L., Fouquereau, E., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Gimenes, G., Becker, C., & Gillet, N. (2014). Analyse Préliminaire des Qualités Psychométriques d’une Version Française du Work Design Questionnaire. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 20(2), 203-232
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Organizational factor: Work accommodations
One question (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The work accommodations factor is assessed with a single question.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Scientific criteria (Score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
The question is: Is the employer able to offer appropriate tasks? YES / NO Scoring instructions: None	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 1 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A positive response indicates that working conditions have been improved, which has a positive impact on the RTW.
References: Iles, R., Sheehan, L., Munk, K., & Gosling, C. (2020). Development and Pilot Assessment of the PACE Tool: Helping Case Managers Identify and Respond to Risk Factors in Workers’ Compensation Case Management. J Occup Rehabil, 30(2), 167-182. doi:10.1007/s10926-019-09858-x
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ø : criterion is not satisfied; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Organizational factor: Work accommodations
2 items (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The work accommodations factor is assessed with 2 items.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Scientific criteria (Score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The items are available in the article by Pejtersen et al. (2010) and are also available *here* in a more user-friendly format. Here are the 2 items: Have you been offered work accommodation? If YES, did you accept the work accommodation offer? Response scale: For item 1, dichotomous yes/no scale (1/0). For item 2, dichotomous yes/no scale (1/0). Scoring instructions: A single variable with three categories: 1. Not offered work accommodation. 2. Offered work accommodation but rejected the offer. 3. Offered work accommodation and accepted the offer.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: An offered work accommodation that has been accepted (category 3) has a positive impact on the RTW.
References: Franche, R. L., Severin, C. N., Hogg-Johnson, S., Côté, P., Vidmar, M., et Lee, H. (2007). The impact of early workplace-based return-to-work strategies on work absence duration: a 6-month longitudinal study following an occupational musculoskeletal injury. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49(9), 960-974.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ø : criterion is not satisfied; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Organizational factor: Work accommodations
2 items (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The work accommodations factor is assessed with 2 items.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Scientific criteria (Score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The items are available in the article by Pejtersen et al. (2010) and are also available *here* in a more user-friendly format. Here are the 2 items: Have you been offered work accommodation? If YES, did you accept the work accommodation offer? Response scale: For item 1, dichotomous yes/no scale (1/0). For item 2, dichotomous yes/no scale (1/0). Scoring instructions: A single variable with three categories: 1. Not offered work accommodation. 2. Offered work accommodation but rejected the offer. 3. Offered work accommodation and accepted the offer.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: An offered work accommodation that has been accepted (category 3) has a positive impact on the RTW.
References: Franche, R. L., Severin, C. N., Hogg-Johnson, S., Côté, P., Vidmar, M., et Lee, H. (2007). The impact of early workplace-based return-to-work strategies on work absence duration: a 6-month longitudinal study following an occupational musculoskeletal injury. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49(9), 960-974.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ø : criterion is not satisfied; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Personal Factor: RTW expectations or Expectations of duration of sick leave
Work related recovery expectation questionnaire (Overall value: ☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The factor RTW expectations or Expectation of duration of sick leave can be assessed with the Work related recovery expectation questionnaire, consisting of three items.
Scientific criteria (score: 3/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 3/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation Ø; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The different items of the questionnaire are available in the article by Gross and Battié (2005 b) and in the appendix of Gross and Battié (2005a), or by downloading the questionnaire (top of the table) presented in a more user-friendly format. Response scale: 5-point Likert scale: 1. Strongly disagree . .. 5. Strongly agree Scoring instructions: Each individual score is added up, taking into account the first item which is reversed.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSDs Language: English (translated into French by the research team) Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Little information on interpretation of scores; lower scores represent more positive expectations..
References: Gross, D. P. et Battié, M. C. (2005a). Factors influencing results of functional capacity evaluations in workers’ compensation claimants with low back pain. Physical Therapy, 85(4), 315–322. doi: 10.1093/ptj/85.4.315 Gross, D. P. et Battié, M. C. (2005b). Work-related recovery expectations and the prognosis of chronic low back pain within a workers’ compensation setting. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 47(4), 428-433.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ø : criterion is not satisfied

Personal factor: Positive RTW expectations
RTW Beliefs Questionnaire (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The positive RTW expectations factor is assessed with a single subscale (3 items) of the RTW Beliefs Questionnaire. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “Intention to RTW”.
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The items are available in the article by Hedlund et al. (2021). Here are the 3 items: I expect to return to work within 3 months I want to return to work within 3 months I intend to return to work within 3 months Response scale: 7-point Likert scale: 1. Strongly disagree … 7. Strongly agree Scoring instructions: Average of the three items. The score can vary between 1 and 7.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD and CMD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score indicates positive expectations of RTW, which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Hedlund, A., Kristofferzon, M. L., Boman, E., & Nilsson, A. (2021). Are return to work beliefs, psychological well-being and perceived health related to return-to-work intentions among women on long-term sick leave for common mental disorders? A cross-sectional study based on the theory of planned behaviour. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 535. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10562-w
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Personal factor: Positive RTW expectations
Questions uniques (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The positive RTW expectations factor is assessed with a single subscale (3 items) of the RTW Beliefs Questionnaire. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “Intention to RTW”.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: Pour la prédiction du RT (Carrière et coll., 2023): How likely is it that you will return to work? Response scale: Mark with an X a visual analogue scale (10 cm) ranging from 0% (Not at all likely) to 100% (Extremely likely). Pour la prédiction de la durée de l’absence maladie (Truchon et coll., 2012): Quand pensez-vous pouvoir retourner au travail? Échelle : 1 point = d’ici 1 mois; …12 points = d’ici 12 mois et plus. Calcul du score : Score unique pour chaque question	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD and CMD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 1 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A score indicating positive RT expectations is associated with a positive impact on RTW.
References: Carrière, J., Berbiche, D., Montemurro, L., & Sullivan, M. (2023). Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of recovery expectations in rehabilitation research and practice. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3242566/v1 Truchon, M., Schmouth, M. E., Cote, D., Fillion, L., Rossignol, M., & Durand, M. J. (2012). Absenteeism screening questionnaire (ASQ): a new tool for predicting long-term absenteeism among workers with low back pain. J Occup Rehabil, 22(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9318-0
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Personal factor: Fear (work activities)
Two items from the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) subscale (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The positive recovery expectations factor can be measured by two independent questions, chosen by the user, depending on what is predicted (return to work or length of absence).
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: Available in Hagen et al. (2005) or Hogg-Johnson & Cole (2003) Measuring the probability of recovery (Hagen et al., 2005): To what extent do I believe my pain will persist? To a small extent____ To some extent___ To a large extent____ Measure o[CL1] f recovery progress (Hogg-Johnson & Cole, 2003): When do you think you will recover? 1. Soon ____ 2. Slowly ____ 3. Get worse ____ 4. Recur ____ Interpretation note: Dichotomize into two categories: those who think they’ll get better soon (1) and those who don’t think they’ll get better soon (2, 3, 4).	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 1 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: – For question 1: “To a small extent” indicates positive expectations of RTW, which has a positive impact on RTW. – For question 2: “A score of 1 (soon) indicates positive expectations of RTW, which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Hagen, E. M., Svensen, E., & Eriksen, H. R. (2005). Predictors and modifiers of treatment effect influencing sick leave in subacute low back pain patients. Spine, 30(24), 2717-2723. Hogg-Johnson, S., & Cole, D. (2003). Early prognostic factors for duration on temporary total benefits in the first year among workers with compensated occupational soft tissue injuries. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(4), 244-253.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Personal factor: Suitable work ability
Work Ability Index – 1 item (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable work ability factor can be assessed with the first item of the Work Ability Index questionnaire about “Current work ability compared with the lifetime best”.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The item, as reported in Ilmarinen’s (2007) article, is as follows: Assume that your work ability at its best has a value of 10 points. How many points would you give your current work ability? (0 means that you cannot currently work at all) Response scale: Numerical rating scale from 0 = Completely unable to work to 10 = Work ability at its best Scoring instructions: None	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: Available in several languages, including English and French. Evaluation method: Patient reported questionnaire Mode of administration: not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: 1 item – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score represents greater aptitude for work, which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Ilmarinen, J. (2007). The Work Ability Index (WAI). Occupational Medicine, 57(2), 160. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqm008 Wahlin, C., Ekberg, K., Persson, J., Bernfort, L., & Oberg, B. (2012). Association between clinical and work-related interventions and return-to-work for patients with musculoskeletal or mental disorders. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 44(4), 355-362.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Personal factor: Suitable work ability
Graded Reduced Work Ability scale – 1 item (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable work ability factor can be assessed using the 5-item Graded Reduced Work Ability scale.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The item, as reported in the article by Sampere et al. (2012), is as follows: To what degree is your ability to perform your ordinary, remunerative work reduced today? Response scale: Numerical scale from 0 = Not at all reduced to 10 = Extremely reduced Scoring instructions: The values are recoded into three categories: (1) not at all or slightly reduced work ability (from 0 to 3); (2) moderately reduced (from 4 to 6); (3) very or extremely reduced (from 7 to 10).	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (translated into French by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient reported questionnaire Mode of administration: not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: 1 item – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Category 3 (very or extremely reduced), corresponding to a score of 7 to 10, is predictive of non-RTW.
References: Reiso, H., Nygard, J. F., Brage, S., Gulbrandsen, P., & Tellnes, G. (2001). Work ability and duration of certified sickness absence. Scand J Public Health, 29(3), 218-225. Sampere, M., Gimeno, D., Serra, C., Plana, M., Lopez, J. C., Martinez, J. M., . . . Benavides, F. G. (2012). Return to work expectations of workers on long-term non-work-related sick leave. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 15-26. doi:10.1007/s10926-011-9313-5
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Personal factor: Suitable work ability
Graded Reduced Work Ability scale (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable work ability factor can be assessed using the 5-item Graded Reduced Work Ability scale.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The items are available in the article by Haldorsen et al. (1998). Here is one of the 5 items: How many of your activities and duties are affected by the complaints you are sick-listed for? Response scale: 5-point Likert scale: 1= A great deal to 5= Very little Scoring instructions: Sum of the five items. The score can vary between 5 and 25 out of 25.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (translated into French by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient reported questionnaire Mode of administration: not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score represents greater aptitude for work, which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Coole, C. (2012). Changing perceptions of work ability in people with low back pain: a feasibility and economic evaluation. (PhD). University of Nottingham, Nottingham. Haldorsen, E. M., Indahl, A., & Ursin, H. (1998). Patients with low back pain not returning to work. A 12-month follow-up study. Spine, 23(11), 1202-1207.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Personal factor: Suitable work ability
Graded Reduced Work Ability scale (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable work ability factor can be assessed using the 5-item Graded Reduced Work Ability scale.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The items are available in the article by Haldorsen et al. (1998). Here is one of the 5 items: How many of your activities and duties are affected by the complaints you are sick-listed for? Response scale: 5-point Likert scale: 1= A great deal to 5= Very little Scoring instructions: Sum of the five items. The score can vary between 5 and 25 out of 25.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (translated into French by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient reported questionnaire Mode of administration: not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score represents greater aptitude for work, which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Coole, C. (2012). Changing perceptions of work ability in people with low back pain: a feasibility and economic evaluation. (PhD). University of Nottingham, Nottingham. Haldorsen, E. M., Indahl, A., & Ursin, H. (1998). Patients with low back pain not returning to work. A 12-month follow-up study. Spine, 23(11), 1202-1207.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Personal factor: Fear (work activities)
Two items from the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) subscale (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Fear of work activities is assessed using 2 items of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility : Both items are identified in studies by Turner et al. (2006, 2008) but minor modifications were made (“back” was removed in three places) to be applied to all MSDs, as Oyeflaten et al (2008) probably did. Here are the 2 items in question: My work makes or would make my pain worse My work might harm my injury Response scale: 7-point Likert scale: 0 = Completely disagree; 3 = Unsure; 6= Completely agree. Scoring instructions: Average scores for the 2 items, giving an average score ranging from 0 to 6.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: Available in many languages, including French (Chaory et al. 2004). Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale mean greater fear of work activities, which has a negative impact on RTW.
References: Chaory K, Fayad F, Rannou F, et al. Validation of the French Version of the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(8):908-913. Oyeflaten I, Hysing M, Eriksen HR. Prognostic factors associated with return to work following multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(7):548-54. Turner JA, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Sheppard L, Stover B, Wu R, et al. ISSLS prize winner: early predictors of chronic work disability: a prospective, population-based study of workers with back injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(25):2809-18. Turner JA, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Sheppard L, Wickizer TM, Wu R, et al. Worker recovery expectations and fear-avoidance predict work disability in a population-based workers’ compensation back pain sample. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(6):682-9. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52:157-68.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Personal factor: Fear (work activities)
Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire – work subscale (FABQ-work) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Fear of work activities is assessed using the 7-item work subscale of the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire.
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: Available in Waddell et al (1993) but minor modifications were made (“back” was removed in three places) to be applied to all MSDs, as Oyeflaten et al (2008) probably did. Here are 3 of the 7 items in question: When I have pain … My pain was caused by my work or by an accident at work. My work is too heavy for me My work might harm my injury Response scale: 7-point Likert scale: 0 = Completely disagree; 3 = Unsure; 6= Completely agree. Scoring instructions: Sum of the scores for the 7 items, giving a total score ranging from 0 to 42.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: Available in many languages, including French (Chaory et al. 2004). Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale mean greater fear of work activities, which has a negative impact on RTW. A score of 29/42 or higher would increase the risk of work absence of up to 4 weeks, in a patient undergoing therapy for acute back pain (Fritz and George, 2002).
References: Chaory K, Fayad F, Rannou F, et al. Validation of the French Version of the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(8):908-913. Fritz, J. M., & George, S. Z. (2002). Identifying psychosocial variables in patients with acute work-related low back pain: the importance of fear-avoidance beliefs. Phys Ther, 82(10), 973-983. Grøvle L, Haugen AJ, Keller A, Ntvig B, Brox JI, Grotle M. Prognostic factors for return to work in patients with sciatica. Spine J. 2013;13(12):1849-57. Opsahl J, Eriksen HR, Tveito TH. Do expectancies of return to work and Job satisfaction predict actual return to work in workers with long lasting LBP? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):481. Oyeflaten I, Hysing M, Eriksen HR. Prognostic factors associated with return to work following multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(7):548-54. Soucy I, Truchon M, Côté D. Work-related factors contributing to chronic disability in low back pain. Work. 2006;26(3):313-26. Storheim K, Brox, J. I., Holm, I., & Bo, K. . Predictors of return to work in patients sick listed for sub-acute low back pain: a 12-month follow-up study. Journal of rehabilitation medicine. 2005;37(6):365-71. Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ. A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain. 1993;52:157-68.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Personal factor: Positive RTW self-efficacy
Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy (RTWSE) scale – Coping with pain subscale (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Positive RTW self-efficacy is assessed using the 4-item “Coping with pain” subscale of the Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy (RTWSE) scale.
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses Ø; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Administration time √; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available in Brouwer et al (2011) in English or Grolier et al (2023) in French, or by downloading the questionnaire (top of table) in a more user-friendly format. Here are the 4 items of the subscale in question: Will be able to remain once back at work. Can continue working despite pain. Can avoid re-injury Can manage pain effectively while you work. Response scale: 5-point Likert scale: 1 = Not confident at all; 2 = Not confident; 3 = Slightly confident; 4 = Moderately confident; 5= Totally confident. Scoring instructions: Sum of the scores for the 4 items, giving a total score ranging from 4 to 20.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: Available in English (Brouwer et al., 2011) and French (Grolier et al., 2023). Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: face to face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale mean greater RTW self-efficacy, which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Brouwer, S., Franche, R. L., Hogg-Johnson, S., Lee, H., Krause, N., & Shaw, W. S. (2011). Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy: Development and Validation of a Scale in Claimants with Musculoskeletal Disorders. J Occup.Rehabil., 21(2), 244-258. Brouwer, S., Amick, B. C., 3rd, Lee, H., Franche, R. L., & Hogg-Johnson, S. (2015). The Predictive Validity of the Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy Scale for Return-to-Work Outcomes in Claimants with Musculoskeletal Disorders. J Occup Rehabil, 25(4), 725-732. Grolier, M., Lanhers, C., Lefevre-Colau, M. M., Pereira, B., & Coudeyre, E. (2023). Return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaires are relevant for people with chronic non-specific low back pain. Ann Phys Rehabil Med, 66(3), 101716.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaire (RTW-SE) 11 items
Personal factor: Return to work self-efficacy (Overall value: ☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The Return-to-work self-efficacy factor can be assessed with the Return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaire.
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 2/4): Administration time Ø; Ease of administration √; Ease of interpretation Ø; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available in the article Lagerveld, Blonk, Brenninjmeijer and Schaufeli (2010), or by downloading the questionnaire (top of the table) presented in a more user-friendly format. Here are some examples of the 11 items: Response scale: 1 Strongly disagree; 2 Moderately disagree; 3 Slightly disagree; 4 Slightly agree; 5 Moderately agree; 6 Strongly agree. Scoring instructions: add up the scores, considering the reversed items, then divide by 11 to get the average	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: CMDs Language: English (translated into French by the research team) Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: by telephone or face to face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 4 min – Simple: yes, but be careful with the calculation of the score (reversed items) Interpretation of scores: An average score of 4.5 indicates a high level of self-efficacy.
References: Lagerveld, S. E., Blonk, R. W. B., Brenninkmeijer, V. et Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Return to work among employees with mental health problems: Development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire. Work & Stress, 24(4), 359-375. Volker, D., Zijlstra-Vlasveld, M. C., Brouwers, E. P. M., van Lomwel, A. G. C. et van der Feltz-Cornelis, C. M. (2015). Return-to-work self-efficacy and actual return to work among long-term sick-listed employees. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(2), 423-431.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ø : criterion is not satisfied

Personal factor: Return to work self-efficacy
Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) (Overall value: ☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The Return-to-work self-efficacy factor can be evaluated with the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (46 items). This questionnaire aims to evaluate the obstacles perceived during the return to work (Part A) and how the worker feels able to overcome them (Part B).
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity by factor analyses √; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 2/4): Administration time Ø; Ease of administration Ø; Ease of interpretation √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The complete questionnaire is available at http://www.mentalhealthwork.ca/ Go to YOUR WEB SPACE > STAKEHOLDERS and log in If you don’t have an account, register for free Response scale: The 46 items cover 10 dimensions: (1) fear of a relapse (4 items), (2) cognitive difficulties (3 items), (3) medication-related difficulties (3 items), (4) job demands (7 items), (5) feeling of organizational injustice (4 items), (6) difficult relation with the immediate supervisor (7 items), (7) difficult relations with co-workers (7 items), (8) difficult relations with insurance company (4 items), (9) difficult work/life balance (4 items), (10) loss of motivation to return to work (3 items). Part A (Perceived obstacles to RTW): Likert scale: 1= Not an obstacle to 7= Big obstacle. Part B (Self-efficacy beliefs about overcoming them): Likert scale: 1= Not at all capable to to 7= Completely capable. Scoring instructions: Remember that if we want to calculate the self-efficacy score (Part B), we must only consider the answers in Part B. The average score for each of the 10 dimensions is calculated by summing the scores for the items in the dimension ÷ by the number of items in that same dimension, which gives a score ranging from 1 to 7.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: One version is available for MSDs and another for CMDs Language: French, English, Italian Evaluation method: self-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Telephone, face-to-face, online Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: 20 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: score of 3 or less (over 7) = considered problematic.
References: Corbière, M., et al., Development of the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) and Validation with Workers Suffering from a Common Mental Disorder or Musculoskeletal Disorder. J Occup Rehabil, 2017, 27(3):329-341
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ø : criterion is not satisfied

Health factor: Functional disability
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: For workers with back pain only, the functional disability factor is assessed using the 10-item Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, version 2.0.
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: Available in Fairbank et coll. (2000) Here is an item (section 4) from the 10 items in question: SECTION 4 –Walking Pain does not prevent my walking any distance. Pain prevents me walking more than 1 mile (1.6 km). Pain prevents me walking more than 1/4 mile (0.4 km). Pain prevents me walking more than 100 yards (91 m). I can only walk using a stick or on crutches. I am in bed most of the time and have to crawl to the toilet. Response scale: Each item has different response options on a 6-point Likert scale, generally ranging from “no limitation” = 0 to “maximum limitation” = 5 (total score: 0-100). Scoring instructions: The sum of the scores for the 10 items ranges from 0 to 50. Then, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is calculated as a percentage using the following formula: (Score × 100) / 50.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD (back pain) Language: 10 languages, including French (Vogler, Paillex, Norberg, de Goumoens and Cabri, 2008) and English (Fairbank and Pynsent, 2000) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 5 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score indicates greater functional disability, which has a negative impact on RTW. The author of the original version of the tool suggests this interpretation, although it has not been validated: 0 – 20% = Minimal disability; 21 – 40% = Moderate disability; 41- 60% = Severe disability; 61- 80% = Major disability; 81- 100% = Total disability (bedridden or exaggerates symptoms). Clinically significant change: Clinical improvement over time. If, for example, at the start of treatment the score is 12 and at the end the score is 2 (10 points of improvement), we would calculate an 83% (10/12 x 100) improvement. Given that a difference of 30% is considered clinically significant, this improvement would be considered very significant (Ostelo et al., 2008).
References: Fairbank, J. C. T. et Pynsent, P. B. (2000). The Oswestry disability index. Spine, 25(22), 2940-2953. Ostelo R.W., Deyo, R.A., Stratford, P., Waddell, G., Croft, P. Von Korff, M., Bouter, L.M., de Vet, H.C. (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33:90-4. Vogler, D., Paillex, R., Norberg, M., de Goumoens, P. et Cabri, J. (2008). Cross-cultural validation of the Oswestry disability index in French. Annales de réadaptation et de médecine physique, 51(5), 379-385.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Health factor: Functional disability
RAND-36-PF (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: For workers with back pain only, the functional disability factor is assessed with a single subscale (10 items) of the RAND-36 (or SF-36) questionnaire. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called ”Physical Functioning” .
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer Ø; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret Ø; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The RAND-36 questionnaire is a 36-item tool, including 10 items for the physical functioning subscale. This questionnaire is equivalent to the SF-36 version 1 and is used here because it is available free of charge (unlike the SF-36 version 2). Here are a few examples from the 10 items in question: Does your health now limit you in these activities? If so, how much? Lifting or carrying groceries Bending, kneeling or stooping Walking more than a mile Response scale: 3-point response scale: Yes, Limited A Lot = 0 Yes, Limited A Little = 50 No, Not Limited At All = 100 Scoring instructions: Average score for 10 items	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: 22 languages, including French (Quebec version) and English (Hays, Sherbourne and Mazel, 1993) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: 10 items – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A lower score indicates greater functional disability, which has a negative impact on RTW.
References: Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ, 2(3), 217-227
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Health factor: Functional disability
RAND-36 (single question) (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The perceived health improvement factor is measured by a single item on the RAND-36 (or SF-36) questionnaire.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 3/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret Ø; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The RAND-36 questionnaire is a 36-item tool, with item 2 devoted to Positive Health Change. This questionnaire is equivalent to the SF-36 version 1 and is used here because it is available free of charge (unlike the SF-36 version 2). Here is the item in question: Compared to one year ago, how would you rate your health in general now? Response scale: 5-point scale Much better now than one year ago = 100 Somewhat better now than one year ago = 75 About the same = 50 Somewhat worse than one year ago = 25 Much worse than one year ago = 0 Scoring instructions: Single score for a single item	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: 22 languages, including French (Quebec version) and English (Hays, Sherbourne and Mazel, 1993) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: 1 items – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A lower score represents a better perception of health improvement, which has a positive impact on the RTW.
References: Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ, 2(3), 217-227
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Health factor: Maladaptive illness behaviours
Clinical signs of Waddell simulation (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The factor of maladaptive illness behaviours is assessed during the clinical examination with the two malingering signs among Waddell’s eight non-organic signs.
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The organic signs were first described in Waddell et al. (1980) and later described in more detail in Werneke et al. (1993). Simulation tests give the patient the impression that a particular examination is being carried out when, in fact, it is not the case. Here are the 2 simulation signs in question: Pain with simulated axial loading: Back pain on vertical loading on the standing patient’s head. Pain with simulated rotation: Back pain when shoulders and pelvis are passively rotated in the same plane.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD (back pain) Language: Evaluation method: Clinical exam Mode of administration: Manual physical test Training required to administer the tool: yes Feasibility – Time to administer: 1min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: If the patient reacts excessively or inappropriately to either of these two tests, the test is positive, which has a negative impact on the RTW.
References: Apeldoorn, A. T., Bosselaar, H., Blom-Luberti, T., Twisk, J. W., & Lankhorst, G. J. (2008). The reliability of nonorganic sign-testing and the Waddell score in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 33(7), 821-826. Waddell G, McCulloch JA, Kummel E, Venner RM. Nonorganic physical signs in low-back pain. Spine. 1980;5(2):117-25. Waddell G, Main CJ, Morris EW, Di Paola M, Gray IC. Chronic low-back pain, psychologic distress, and illness behavior. Spine. 1984;9(2):209-13. Werneke MW, Harris DE, Lichter RL. Clinical effectiveness of behavioral signs for screening chronic low-back pain patients in a work-oriented physical rehabilitation program. Spine. 1993;18(16):2412-8.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Health factor: Maladaptive illness behaviours
Waddell’s symptoms (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The factor of maladaptive illness behaviour is assessed during the clinical interview by identifying symptoms from among the seven Waddell’s symptoms.
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 2/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: Waddell symptoms (n = 7) are identified during the clinical interview, as described in Waddell et al. (1984). Some symptoms seem particularly inappropriate and linked to psychological characteristics. Here are the specific questions to identify them: (1) Do you get pain at the tip of your tail-bone? (2) Does your whole leg ever become painful? (3) Does your whole leg ever go numb? (4) Does your whole leg ever give way? (5) In the past year have you had any spells with very little pain? (No scored positive); and information gathered in routine history (6) Intolerance of/reactions to treatment (7) emergency admission to hospital with back trouble. Scoring instructions: Sum of positive symptoms, giving a total score ranging from 0 to 7.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD (back pain) Language: Evaluation method: Clinical exam Mode of administration: Manual physical test Training required to administer the tool: yes Feasibility – Time to administer: Few minutes – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A greater number of positive symptoms indicates maladaptive illness behavior, which has a negative impact on RTW.
References: Carleton, R. N., Kachur, S. S., Abrams, M. P., & Asmundson, G. J. (2009). Waddell’s symptoms as indicators of psychological distress, perceived disability, and treatment outcome. J Occup Rehabil, 19(1), 41-48. Waddell G, Main CJ, Morris EW, Di Paola M, Gray IC. Chronic low-back pain, psychologic distress, and illness behavior. Spine. 1984;9(2):209-13.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable

Health factor: Increased locus of control
Multidimensional health locus of control questionnaire – external subscale (chance) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The increased locus of control factor is assessed with a single subscale (6 items) of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control questionnaire. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called « External Locus of Control (chance)”.
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available on https://nursing.vanderbilt.edu/projects/wallstonk/index.php Here are 3 of the 6 items in question: No matter what I do, if I am going to get sick, I will get sick. Most things that affect my health happen to me by accident. If it’s meant to be, I will stay healthy. Response scale: Likert: 1= Strongly disagree to 6= Strongly agree. Scoring instructions: Sum of the scores for the 6 items, giving a total score ranging from 6 to 36.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score on this scale means that the worker believes that health problems are due to chance and luck (and not to his work), which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Hagen EM, Svensen E, Eriksen HR. Predictors and modifiers of treatment effect influencing sick leave in subacute low back pain patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(24):2717-23 Wallston KA, Wallston BS, DeVellis R. Development of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales. Health Educ Monogr. 1978;6(2):160-70. Wallston KA. The validity of the multidimensional health locus of control scales. J Health Psychol. 2005;10(5):623-31. Ross TP, Ross LT, Short SD, Cataldo S. The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale: Psychometric Properties and Form Equivalence. Psychol Rep. 2015;116(3):889-913.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Health factor: Increased locus of control
Multidimensional health locus of control questionnaire – internal subscale (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The increased locus of control factor is assessed with a single subscale (6 items) of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control questionnaire – Form A. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “Internality”.
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available on https://nursing.vanderbilt.edu/projects/wallstonk/index.php Here are 3 of the 6 items in question: I am in control of my health. When I get sick, I am to blame. If I take the right actions, I can stay healthy. Response scale: Likert: 1= Strongly disagree to 6= Strongly agree. Scoring instructions: Sum of the scores for the 6 items, giving a total score ranging from 6 to 36.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score on this scale means that the worker believes that health problems are due to chance and luck (and not to his work), which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Hagen EM, Svensen E, Eriksen HR. Predictors and modifiers of treatment effect influencing sick leave in subacute low back pain patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(24):2717-23 Wallston KA, Wallston BS, DeVellis R. Development of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales. Health Educ Monogr. 1978;6(2):160-70. Wallston KA. The validity of the multidimensional health locus of control scales. J Health Psychol. 2005;10(5):623-31. Ross TP, Ross LT, Short SD, Cataldo S. The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale: Psychometric Properties and Form Equivalence. Psychol Rep. 2015;116(3):889-913.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Health factor: Increased locus of control
Wallston’s Adapted Return to Work Locus of Control Scale – Internal subscale (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The increased locus of control factor is assessed with a single subscale (3 items) of the modified version of Wallston’s Health Locus of Control scale. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “Internal Locus of Control”.
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available in Selander et al. (2007). Here are the 3 items in question: It is mainly what I do myself that affects whether I get back to work or not. My own behaviour determines when or if I will get back to work. I’m in control of my rehabilitation and return to work. Response scale: Likert: 1= Strongly disagree to 6= Strongly agree. Scoring instructions: Sum of the scores for the 6 items, giving a total score ranging from 3 to 18.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method:* Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score on this scale means that the worker believes that health problems are due to chance and luck (and not to his work), which has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Murphy GC, Young AE, Vo K-M. Using locus of control to predict the return-to-work achievements of back-injured occupational rehabilitation clients. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling. 1995;1(2):83-92. Selander J, Marnetoft SU, Asell M. Predictors for successful vocational rehabilitation for clients with back pain problems. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(3):215-20.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable; * This tool was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Canadian French, with 2 professional translators and 8 workers on sick leave due to an MSD.

Health factor: Pain catastrophizing
Three items from the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The pain catastrophizing factor is assessed with three items from the Pain Catastrophizing Scale questionnaire describing different pain-related thoughts and feelings.
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The three items are identified in Turner et al. (2006). Here are the 3 items in question: When I’m in pain... I feel I can’t stand it anymore It is awful and I feel that it overwhelms me I keep thinking about how badly I want it to stop Response scale: Likert: 0=Not at all; 1= To a slight degree; 2= To a moderate degree; 3= To a great degree; 4=All the time. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 13 items, giving an average score ranging from 0 to 4.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: Available in many languages, including French (Canadian version) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 1 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score on this questionnaire means more pain-related catastrophic thoughts, which have a negative impact on RTW.
References: Turner JA, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Sheppard L, Wickizer TM, Wu R, et al. Worker recovery expectations and fear-avoidance predict work disability in a population-based workers’ compensation back pain sample. Spine. 2006;31(6):682-9. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7:524-32.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Pain catastrophizing
Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The pain catastrophizing factor is assessed with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale questionnaire (13 items), which describes various pain-related thoughts and feelings and evaluates the following dimensions: rumination (4 items), amplification (3 items) and helplessness (6 items).
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) Ø; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: Available in Sullivan et al. (1995) and can also be accessed at https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/pain-catastrophizing-scale Here are 3 of the 13 items in question: When I’m in pain... I worry all the time about whether the pain will end I keep thinking of other painful events. I wonder whether something serious may happen. Response scale: Likert: 0=Not at all; 1=To a slight degree; 2=To a moderate degree; 3=To a great degree; 4=All the time. Scoring instructions: Sum of the scores for the 13 items, giving a total score ranging from 0 to 52.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: Available in many languages, including French (Canadian version) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 5 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score on this questionnaire means more pain-related catastrophic thoughts, which have a negative impact on RTW. A score between the 50th and 75th percentiles, i.e. between 20 and 30, would indicate a moderate risk of developing chronicity. A score above 30 would indicate a high risk of developing chronicity.
References: Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7:524-32. Wheeler CHB, Williams ACC, Morley SJ. Meta-analysis of the psychometric properties of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and associations with participant characteristics. Pain. 2019;160(9):1946-53.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Fear (relapse)
Single question (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The fear of relapse factor is assessed using a subscale (4 items) of the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) questionnaire (Part-A – Obstacles of RTW). The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “apprehension of relapse”.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The question is available in Hagen et al. (2005). Here’s the item in question: If you continue working, what effect will that have on your complaints? Response scale: From Coole (2012): 5-point Likert scale: 1 = A great deal; 2 = A lot; 3 = Some; 4= Not much; 5 = Very little. Scoring instructions: None	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: <1 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A lower score on this questionnaire means a greater fear that continuing to work will negatively affect complaints (or pain symptoms), which will have a negative impact on RTW.
References: Coole C. Changing perceptions of work ability in people with low back pain: a feasibility and economic evaluation. Nottingham: University of Nottingham; 2012. Hagen EM, Svensen E, Eriksen HR. Predictors and modifiers of treatment effect influencing sick leave in subacute low back pain patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(24):2717-23. Haldorsen EM, Indahl A, Ursin H. Patients with low back pain not returning to work. A 12-month follow-up study. Spine. 1998;23(11):1202-7.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Fear (movement)
Single question (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The factor fear (movement) can be measured with a question inspired by the Tampa scale of kinesiophobia (TSK).
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The question is available in Du Bois et al. (2009). Here’s the item in question: It is not advisable to be physically active. Response scale: 4-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4= Strongly agree. Scoring instructions: None	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: <1 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score on this questionnaire means a greater fear of movement, which has a negative impact on RTW.
References: Du Bois M, Szpalski M, Donceel P. Patients at risk for long-term sick leave because of low back pain. Spine J. 2009;9(5):350-9. Lundberg M, Grimby-Ekman A, Verbunt J, Simmonds MJ. Pain-related fear: a critical review of the related measures. Pain Res Treat. 2011;2011:494196 Vlaeyen JWS, Kole-Snijders AMJ, Boeren RGB, van Eek H. Fear of movement / (re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance. Pain. 1995;62(3):363-72.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Fear (relapse)
Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The fear of relapse factor is assessed using a subscale (4 items) of the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) questionnaire (Part-A – Obstacles of RTW). The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “apprehension of relapse”.
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available for free at http://www.santementaletravail.ca/ Go to YOUR AREA > INTERVENANTS and log in If you don’t have an account, register free of charge Here are the 4 items in question: Item 1. Fear that your musculoskeletal problem will worsen after returning to work. Item 11. Fear that new symptoms will appear after you return to work. Item 24. Having difficulty recovering after a day’s work. Item 32. Fear of having a relapse due to the demands of your job. Response scale: Likert: 1= Not an obstacle to 7= Big obstacle. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 4 items, giving an average score ranging from 1 to 7.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: French (Quebec version); English Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: 1 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score indicates a greater relapse apprehension, which has a negative impact on RTW. Critical threshold: a score of 4 or more is considered problematic.
References: Corbiere, M., et al., Development of the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) and Validation with Workers Suffering from a Common Mental Disorder or Musculoskeletal Disorder. J Occup Rehabil, 2017, 27(3):329-341
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Good sleep quality
OMPSQ-sleep (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: Sleep quality can be assessed using a single item (sleep disturbance) of the 10-item-short-form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire – (ÖMPSQ-SF)
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: Here is the question, available in Linton et al. (2011): I can sleep at night. Response scale: 11-point Likert scale, from “can’t do it because of pain problem” = 0 to “can do it without pain being a problem” = 10 Score range: 0-10	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Linton et al., 2011) and French (Nonclercq et al., 2012) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 1 item – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score on this questionnaire means better quality sleep, which has a positive impact on the return to work.
References: Linton, S. J., Nicholas, M., & Macdonald, S. (2011). Development of a short form of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976.), 36(22), 1891-1895. Nonclercq, O., & Berquin, A. (2012). Predicting chronicity in acute back pain: validation of a French translation of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 55(4), 263-278.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Good sleep quality
CPRS-S-A-sleep (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: Sleep quality can be assessed using a single question from the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale Self Administered (CPRS-S-A)
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The question, available in Asberg et al. (1978), was rephrased in a self-rating format (Gustafsson et al., 2013) as follows: Subjective experience of reduced duration or depth of sleep compared with my normal pattern when well. Response scale: 4-point Likert scale, from Sleeps as usual = 0 Slight difficulty dropping off to sleep or slightly reduced, light or fitful sleep = 1 Sleep reduced or broken by at least 2 hours = 2 Less than two- or three-hours’ sleep = 3 Scoring instructions: Not applicable	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: CMD Language: English (Asberg et al., 1978) and French (Lemperiere et al., 1985) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 1 item – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A score lower than 2 (i.e. 0 or 1) means less sleep disturbances (more quality sleep), which positively impacts RTW of workers with a CMD.
References: Asberg, M., Montgomery, S. A., Perris, C., Schalling, D., & Sedvall, G. (1978). A comprehensive psychopathological rating scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Suppl(271), 5-27. Gustafsson, K., Lundh, G., Svedberg, P., Linder, J., Alexanderson, K., & Marklund, S. (2013). Psychological factors are related to return to work among long-term sickness absentees who have undergone a multidisciplinary medical assessment. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 45(2), 186-191. Lemperiere, T., Guelfi, J., & Waintraub, L. (1985). La CPRS comparaison avec d’autres échelles d’évaluation générale de la psychopathologie. Paper presented at the Annales médico-psychologiques.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Good sleep quality
Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) – 7 items (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Sleep quality is assessed with the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI)
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: This questionnaire is copyright protected but available for free here if not for commercial use: https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/isi-insomnia-severity-index/ The person evaluates (a) the severity of difficulties falling asleep, waking up at night and waking up prematurely; (b) the degree of satisfaction with sleep habits; (c) the degree of interference with daily functioning; (d) the appearance of deterioration related to the sleep problem; (e) the level of worry caused by sleep difficulties. Response scale: Different scales from 0 to 4, depending on the item. Score calculation: The sum of the scores for the 7 items ranges from 0 to 28.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD and CMD Language: English (Bastien et al., 2001) and French (Blais et al., 1997) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A lower score on this questionnaire means better quality sleep, which has a positive impact on the return to work. The creators of this questionnaire suggest this interpretation of the scores: Score between 0-7: no clinically significant insomnia, Score between 8-14: subthreshold insomnia (mild), Score between 15-21: clinical insomnia (moderate), Score between 22-28: clinical insomnia (severe). The recommended threshold for identifying patients with clinically significant insomnia is an ISI ≥ 11, whereas a change of ≥ 8 would represent a clinically important difference (Morin et al., 2011).
References: Bastien, C. H., Vallières, A., & Morin, C. M. (2001). Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Medicine, 2(4), 297-307. Blais, F. C., Gendron, L., Mimeault, V., & Morin, C. M. (1997). [Evaluation of insomnia: validity of 3 questionnaires]. Encephale, 23(6), 447-453. Morin, C. M., Belleville, G., Bélanger, L., & Ivers, H. (2011). The Insomnia Severity Index: psychometric indicators to detect insomnia cases and evaluate treatment response. Sleep, 34(5), 601-608.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Suitable coping strategies
CSQ (reinterpretation of pain sensations) – 6 items (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable coping strategies factor is assessed with a 6-item subscale of the Coping Strategy Questionnaire (CSQ) focusing on cognitive coping strategies related to the “reinterpretion of pain sensations”.
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) n/a; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 3/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: There is a copyright held by Anne Rosenstiel Gross, but apparently no website to obtain the tool. All items are responded using a 7-point Likert scale, from “never” = 0 to “sometimes” = 3 and “always” = 6. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 6 items, leading to a mean score ranging from 0 to 6 out of 6. Scoring instructions: Not applicable	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Rosenstiel & Keefe, 1983) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale (maybe ≥ 4) means more pain coping in terms of reinterpretations of pain sensations, which positively impacts RTW (decrease sickness absence duration) of workers with a MSD.
References: Abbott, A. (2010). The Coping Strategy Questionnaire. Journal of Physiotherapy, 56(1). Banerjee, A., Hendrick, P., Bhattacharjee, P., & Blake, H. (2018). A systematic review of outcome measures utilised to assess self-management in clinical trials in patients with chronic pain. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(5), 767-778. Koopman, F. S., Edelaar, M., Slikker, R., Reynders, K., van der Woude, L. H., & Hoozemans, M. J. (2004). Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary occupational training program for chronic low back pain: a prospective cohort study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 83(2), 94-103. Rosenstiel, A. K., & Keefe, F. J. (1983). The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: relationship to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain, 17(1), 33-44.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Suitable coping strategies
CSQ (reinterpretation of pain sensations) – 2 items (Overall value: ☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable coping strategies factor is assessed with the 2-item subscale of the Brief Coping Strategy Questionnaire (CSQ-14) focusing on cognitive coping strategies related to the “reinterpretion of pain sensations”.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity Ⅹ; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity Ø.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The CSQ-14 is available in Jensen et al. (2003). Here are the two items : When I feel pain, … – I just think of it as some other sensation, such as numbness (item 2). – I pretend it is not a part of me (item 9). All items are responded using a 7-point Likert scale, from “never” = 0 to “sometimes” = 3 and “always” = 6. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 2 items, leading to a mean score ranging from 0 to 6 out of 6.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Jensen et coll., 2003) and French (Irachabal et al., 2008) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale (maybe ≥ 4) means more pain coping in terms of reinterpretations of pain sensations, which positively impacts RTW (decrease sickness absence duration) of workers with a MSD.
References: Abbott, A. (2010). The Coping Strategy Questionnaire. Journal of Physiotherapy, 56(1). Banerjee, A., Hendrick, P., Bhattacharjee, P., & Blake, H. (2018). A systematic review of outcome measures utilised to assess self-management in clinical trials in patients with chronic pain. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(5), 767-778. Irachabal, S., Koleck, M., Rascle, N., & Bruchon-Schweitzer, M. (2008). Stratégies de coping des patients douloureux: adaptation française du coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ-F). L’encephale, 34(1), 47-53. Jensen, M. P., Keefe, F. J., Lefebvre, J. C., Romano, J. M. et Turner, J. A. (2003). One- and two-item measures of pain beliefs and coping strategies. Pain, 104(3), 453-469. Robinson, M. E., Riley, J. L., 3rd, Myers, C. D., Sadler, I. J., Kvaal, S. A., Geisser, M. E., & Keefe, F. J. (1997). The Coping Strategies Questionnaire: a large sample, item level factor analysis. Clin J Pain, 13(1), 43-49.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Suitable coping strategies
CSQ (increase behavioral activities) – 6 items (Overall value: ☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable coping strategies factor is assessed with a 6-item subscale of the Coping Strategy Questionnaire (CSQ) focusing on behavioral coping strategies related to ” increased behavioral activities “.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) Ⅹ; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency Ø; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility Ø.
Accessibility: There is a copyright held by Anne Rosenstiel Gross, but apparently no website to obtain the tool. All items are responded using a 7-point Likert scale, from “never” = 0 to “sometimes” = 3 and “always” = 6 (subscale score range (mean of items): 0-6). Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 6 items, leading to a mean score ranging from 0 to 6 out of 6.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Jensen et coll., 2003) and French (Irachabal et al., 2008) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale (maybe ≥ 4) means more pain coping in terms of increasing behavioral activities, which positively impacts RTW (decrease sickness absence duration) of workers with a MSD.
References: Abbott, A. (2010). The Coping Strategy Questionnaire. Journal of Physiotherapy, 56(1). Banerjee, A., Hendrick, P., Bhattacharjee, P., & Blake, H. (2018). A systematic review of outcome measures utilised to assess self-management in clinical trials in patients with chronic pain. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(5), 767-778. Irachabal, S., Koleck, M., Rascle, N., & Bruchon-Schweitzer, M. (2008). Stratégies de coping des patients douloureux: adaptation française du coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ-F). L’encephale, 34(1), 47-53. Koopman, F. S., Edelaar, M., Slikker, R., Reynders, K., van der Woude, L. H., & Hoozemans, M. J. (2004). Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary occupational training program for chronic low back pain: a prospective cohort study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 83(2), 94-103. Rosenstiel, A. K., & Keefe, F. J. (1983). The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: relationship to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain, 17(1), 33-44.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Suitable coping strategies
CSQ (increase behavioral activities) – 2 items (Overall value: ☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The suitable coping strategies factor is assessed with a 2-item subscale of the Brief Coping Strategy Questionnaire (CSQ-14) focusing on behavioral coping strategies related to ” increased behavioral activities “.
Scientific criteria (score: 2/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity Ⅹ; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity Ø.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The CSQ-14 is available in Jensen et al. (2003). All items are responded using a 7-point Likert scale, from “never” = 0 to “sometimes” = 3 and “always” = 6 (subscale score range (mean of items): 0-6). Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 6 items, leading to a mean score ranging from 0 to 6 out of 6.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Jensen et coll., 2003) and French (Irachabal et al., 2008) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale (maybe ≥ 4) means more pain coping in terms of increasing behavioral activities, which positively impacts RTW (decrease sickness absence duration) of workers with a MSD.
References: Abbott, A. (2010). The Coping Strategy Questionnaire. Journal of Physiotherapy, 56(1). Banerjee, A., Hendrick, P., Bhattacharjee, P., & Blake, H. (2018). A systematic review of outcome measures utilised to assess self-management in clinical trials in patients with chronic pain. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(5), 767-778. Irachabal, S., Koleck, M., Rascle, N., & Bruchon-Schweitzer, M. (2008). Stratégies de coping des patients douloureux: adaptation française du coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ-F). L’encephale, 34(1), 47-53. Koopman, F. S., Edelaar, M., Slikker, R., Reynders, K., van der Woude, L. H., & Hoozemans, M. J. (2004). Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary occupational training program for chronic low back pain: a prospective cohort study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 83(2), 94-103. Rosenstiel, A. K., & Keefe, F. J. (1983). The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: relationship to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain, 17(1), 33-44.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Suitable coping strategies
CPCI (Guarding) – 9 items (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The poor coping strategies factor is assessed with a 9-item subscale of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) focusing on behavioral coping strategies related to ” guarding”
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 2/4): Time to administer Ø; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility Ø.
Accessibility: The original scale (English version) is available online, at a cost, (https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/66). Here is the generic question that is applied to all strategies (items): During the past week, how many days (0 to 7) did you use this strategy: … … All items are responded using a scale ranging from 0 to 7 days. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 9 items, leading to a mean score ranging from 0 to 7 out of 7.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Jensen et coll., 2003) and French (Irachabal et al., 2008) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher scores on this subscale (maybe ≥ 4) means more pain coping in terms of increasing behavioral activities, which positively impacts RTW (decrease sickness absence duration) of workers with a MSD.
References: Banerjee, A., Hendrick, P., Bhattacharjee, P., & Blake, H. (2018). A systematic review of outcome measures utilised to assess self-management in clinical trials in patients with chronic pain. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(5), 767-778. Jensen, M. P., Turner, J. A., Romano, J. M., & Strom, S. E. (1995). The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory: development and preliminary validation. Pain, 60(2), 203-216. Truchon, M., Cote, D., & Irachabal, S. (2006). The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory: confirmatory factor analysis of the French version. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 7, 13. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-13
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Health factor: Mental vitality
RAND-36-VT (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: The mental vitality factor is assessed with a single subscale (4 items) of the RAND-36 (or SF-36) questionnaire. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “vitality”.
Scientific criteria (score: 6/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 3/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret Ø; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The RAND-36 questionnaire is a 36-item tool, including 4 items for the vitality subscale. This questionnaire is equivalent to the SF-36 version 1 and is used here because it is available free of charge (unlike the SF-36 version 2). Here are the 4 items in question: How did you feel during these 4 weeks? Did you feel full of pep? Did you have a lot of energy? Did you feel worn out? Did you feel tired? Response scale: 6-point scale: (1) All the time; (2) Most of the time; (3) A Good Bit of the Time; (4) Some of the Time; (5) A Little of the Time; (6) None of the Time Scoring instructions: View tool (PDF file)	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: 22 languages including French and English Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: Not specified Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 4 items – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: Higher mental vitality has a positive impact on RTW.
References: Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ, 2(3), 217-227.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Organizational factor: Cognitive overload at work
Job Content Questionnaire (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Cognitive overload at work is assessed using a 5-item subscale of the Job Content Questionnaire. The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called “Psychological Demand”.
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity Ø; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 3/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility Ø.
Accessibility: The full questionnaire is available. Requests can be made to the JCQ Center in Denmark, either by telephone (+45 40461000) or e-mail (jcqcenter@oresundsynergy.com). Access is free in the vast majority of cases (costs may apply in the case of research or commercial projects).	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: CMD Language: 22 languages, including French (Canadian version) and English Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 4 items – Simple: no (complex mathematical formulas, reversed items and information on interpretation standards not available) Interpretation of scores: A high score indicates cognitive overload at work, which has a negative impact on RTW. Interpretation standards are provided with the questionnaire upon request.
References: Haveraaen LA, Skarpaas LS, Aas RW. Job demands and decision control predicted return to work: the rapid-RTW cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):154. Haveraaen LA, Skarpaas LS, Berg JE, Aas RW. Do psychological job demands, decision control and social support predict return to work three months after a return-to-work (RTW) programme? The rapid-RTW cohort study. Work. 2015;53 1:61-71. Karasek RA (1985). Job Content Questionnaire and user’s guide (revision 1.1). Lowell: University of Massachusetts Lowell, the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) Center. Karasek et al (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4): 322-355. Niedhammer, I., Ganem, V., Gendrey, L., David, S. et Degioanni, S. (2006). Propriétés psychométriques de la version française des échelles de la demande psychologique, de la latitude décisionnelle et du soutien social du « Job Content Questionnaire » de Karasek : résultats de l’enquête nationale SUMER. Santé Publique, 18(3).
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Organizational factor: Cognitive overload at work
« Mental load » subscale of the Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work (4 items) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Cognitive overload at work is assessed using a 4-item subscale of the Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work (QEAW). The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called « Mental load ».
Scientific criteria (score: 5/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity Ø.
Applicability criteria (score: 3/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The questionnaire is available in Lequeurre et coll. (2013). Here are the 4 items in question: Does your work would demand a lot of concentration? Does your work would require continual thought? WouldDo you have to give continuous attention to your work? Does your work would require a great deal of carefulness? Response scale: Likert: 1= Never to 7= Always. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 4 items, giving an average score ranging from 1 to 7.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: CMD Language: English and French (translation by the research team) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score would mean cognitive overload at work, which would potentially have a negative impact on RTW. Although there are no studies demonstrating the predictive value of RTW for this question, our research team would recommend intervention if the mean score is ≥ 5.
References: Adapted from : Lequeurre, J., Gillet, N., Ragot, C., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). Validation of a French questionnaire to measure job demands and resources. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 26(4), 93-124. Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA). van Veldhoven, M. J., & Sluiter, J. K. (2009). Work-related recovery opportunities: testing scale properties and validity in relation to health. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 82(9), 1065-1075.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Organizational factor: Cognitive overload at work
« Information processing » subscale of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) (4 items) (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Cognitive overload at work is assessed using a 4-item subscale of the Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work (QEAW). The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called « Mental load ».
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity Ø.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The questionnaire is available in Morgeson et al. (2006). Here are the 4 items in question: The job would requires me to monitor a great deal of information. The job would requires that I engage in a large amount of thinking. The job would requires me to keep track of more than one thing at a time. The job would requires me to analyze a lot of information. Response scale: Likert: 1= Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree. Scoring instructions: Average of the scores for the 3 items, giving an average score ranging from 1 to 5.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: MSD Language: English (Morgeson et al., 2006) and French (Bigot et al. 2014) Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: < 2 min – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A higher score would mean physical overload at work, which would potentially have a negative impact on RTW. Although there are no studies demonstrating the predictive value of RTW for this question, our research team would recommend intervention if the mean score is ≥ 4.
References: Adapted from: Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J Appl Psychol, 91(6), 1321-1339. Bigot, L., Fouquereau, E., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Gimenes, G., Becker, C., & Gillet, N. (2014). Analyse Préliminaire des Qualités Psychométriques d’une Version Française du Work Design Questionnaire. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 20(2), 203-232.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Organizational factor: Good social functioning
RAND-36-SF (Overall value: ☆☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Cognitive overload at work is assessed using a 4-item subscale of the Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work (QEAW). The subscale of the questionnaire that assesses this factor is called « Mental load ».
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency √; Test-retest reliability √; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer √; Easy to administer √; Easy to interpret Ø; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The RAND-36 questionnaire is a 36-item tool, with item 2 devoted to Positive Health Change. This questionnaire is equivalent to the SF-36 version 1 and is used here because it is available free of charge (unlike the SF-36 version 2). Here are the 2 items in question: Over the past 4 weeks, to what extent has your physical or mental condition interfered with your relationships with family, friends, neighbors or other groups? Over the past 4 weeks, has your physical or mental condition interfered with your social activities such as visiting friends, family, etc.? Response scale: Various 5-point scales are used (see PDF file). Scoring instructions: See tool (PDF file)	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: CMD Language: 22 languages including French and English Evaluation method: Patient-reported questionnaire Mode of administration: By telephone or face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: no Feasibility – Time to administer: 2 items – Simple: yes Interpretation of scores: A high score indicates good social functioning, which has a positive impact on the RTW.
References: Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ, 2(3), 217-227. Sullivan, M. and J. Karlsson (1998). “The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. Evaluation of criterion-based validity: results from normative population.” J Clin Epidemiol 51(11): 1105-1113. Ware, J. E., Jr. and B. Gandek (1998). “Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project.” J Clin Epidemiol 51(11): 903-912.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

Organizational factor: Good social functioning
Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) (Overall value: ☆☆)
DESCRIPTION: Good social functioning is measured using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS).
Scientific criteria (score: 4/6): Face validity √; Construct validity (factor analysis) √; Convergent validity √; Internal consistency n/a; Test-retest reliability Ø; Predictive validity √.
Applicability criteria (score: 4/4): Time to administer Ø; Easy to administer Ø; Easy to interpret √; Accessibility √.
Accessibility: The scale is available in Goldman et al. (1992). The EFSP scale, although derived from the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), focuses more specifically on a person’s level of social and occupational functioning. It is therefore not directly affected by the severity of psychological symptoms. The scale is based on the DSM-IV-TR classification (Axis V) and is useful for tracking patients’ clinical progress using a single score. Measurement scale: The scale is divided into 10 intervals (1-10, 11-20, 21-30, etc.), allowing a hypothetical continuum from 1 to 100. The value 1 represents an individual who does not function unless benefiting from significant external support, while 100 corresponds to an individual who shows superior functioning in a wide range of activities.	Target users: researchers and health professionals Target population: CMD Language: 22 languages including French (Benoît-Lamy et coll., 2005) and English (Goldman et al., 1992) Evaluation method: Completed by the clinician according to his/her clinical judgment and knowledge of the patient Mode of administration: Face-to-face Training required to administer the tool: Yes according to Hilsenroth et al. (2000) Feasibility – Time to administer: 5 minutes, once the patient’s information has been collected – Simple: No Interpretation of scores: A high score indicates good social functioning, which has a positive impact on RTW. There are no norms, but in the general population it should be around 80. 100 corresponds to supra-normal functioning.
References: Benoît-Lamy, S., et al. (2005). “DSM-IV-TR: manuel diagnostique et statistique des troubles mentaux.” Issy-les-Moulineaux: Masson. Goldman, H. H., et al. (1992). “Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of measures of social functioning.” Am J Psychiatry 149(9): 1148-1156 Hilsenroth, M. J., et al. (2000). “Reliability and validity of DSM-IV axis V.” Am J Psychiatry 157(11): 1858-1863. Laukkala, T., et al. (2018). “Subjective and objective measures of function and return to work: an observational study with a clinical psychiatric cohort.” Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 53(5): 537-540. https://www.mcgill.ca/mappro/fr/documentation/repertoire-des-mesures/patients/fonctionnement-occupationnel-et-social/sofas-sofas-psp.
Legend: √ : criterion is satisfied; Ⅹ: criterion is not satisfied; Ø : criterion not reported in the articles consulted; n/a : criterion is not applicable.

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.