Interpretation of the “Mental vitality” factor
Mental vitality positively influences RTW or sickness absence duration.
Definition of the “Mental vitality” factor
Short definition: In the field of health, mental vitality refers to the dynamism, energy and vigor manifested by activity.
To find out more:
Good mental vitality positively influences RTW in workers with a CMD (Schultz, Crook, Berkowitz, Milner et Meloche, 2005; Schultz et al., 2002; Selander, Marnetoft et Asell, 2007). There is still no consensus about the best operational definition of vitality. However, vitality is a concept often related with perception of liveliness and feeling full of energy, usually considered part of subjective psychological constructs (Diener, 1984; Ryan et Frederick, 1997). However, vitality also emerges from a physical performance construct of vigor and strength (Femia, Zarit et Johansson, 1997; Sternang et al., 2015; Wood, Magnello et Jewell, 1990). More recent research still struggles to evaluate how mental and physical vitality are impacted by different clinical conditions and to assess their predictive value with regard to different health outcomes (risk of hospitalization, mortality) and participation to activities of daily living (Giudici, de Souto Barreto, Soriano, Rolland et Vellas, 2019; Masciocchi et al., 2020).
One of the most widely used questionnaires to assess health-related quality of life, the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36)(Ware et Sherbourne, 1992), evaluates vitality using four subjective questions about feelings of energy, thus tapping more on mental than physical vitality. Effectively, it asks whether during the past 4 weeks “… did you have a lot of energy?”…have you felt full of pep?”“…did you feel worn out?” and “…did you feel tired?” This measure of mental vitality was shown to be influenced by various clinical conditions and associated with increased odds of negative outcomes such as hospitalization, inability to work, job loss and mortality (Bjorner et al., 2007). Interestingly, another measure of mental vitality, composed of three dimensions (energy, motivation, and resilience) has also been associated with economic (including work), societal and social participation outcomes (van Steenbergen, van Dongen, Wendel-Vos, Hildebrandt et Strijk, 2016). While the SF-36 measure of mental validity is closely related to fatigue, these are different concepts that have their own specificities (Brown, Kroenke, Theobald et Wu, 2011; Knoop et al., 2023).
Bjorner, J. B., Wallenstein, G. V., Martin, M. C., Lin, P., Blaisdell-Gross, B., Tak Piech, C. et Mody, S. H. (2007). Interpreting score differences in the SF-36 Vitality scale: using clinical conditions and functional outcomes to define the minimally important difference. Curr Med Res Opin, 23(4), 731-739. doi: 10.1185/030079907×178757
Brown, L. F., Kroenke, K., Theobald, D. E. et Wu, J. (2011). Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue. Support Care Cancer, 19(8), 1255-1259. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1148-2
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull, 95(3), 542-575. Tiré de
Femia, E. E., Zarit, S. H. et Johansson, B. (1997). Predicting change in activities of daily living: a longitudinal study of the oldest old in Sweden. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 52(6), P294-302. doi: 10.1093/geronb/52b.6.p294
Giudici, K. V., de Souto Barreto, P., Soriano, G., Rolland, Y. et Vellas, B. (2019). Defining Vitality: Associations of Three Operational Definitions of Vitality with Disability in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and Frailty among Elderly Over a 3-Year Follow-Up (MAPT Study). J Nutr Health Aging, 23(4), 386-392. doi: 10.1007/s12603-019-1175-0
Knoop, V., Mathot, E., Louter, F., Beckwee, D., Mikton, C., Diaz, T., . . . Bautmans, I. (2023). Measurement properties of instruments to measure the fatigue domain of vitality capacity in community-dwelling older people: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Age Ageing, 52(Suppl 4), iv26-iv43. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afad140
Masciocchi, E., Maltais, M., El Haddad, K., Virecoulon Giudici, K., Rolland, Y., Vellas, B. et de Souto Barreto, P. (2020). Defining Vitality Using Physical and Mental Well-Being Measures in Nursing Homes: A Prospective Study. J Nutr Health Aging, 24(1), 37-42. doi: 10.1007/s12603-019-1285-8
Ryan, R. M. et Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well‐being. Journal of personality, 65(3), 529-565.
Schultz, I. Z., Crook, J., Berkowitz, J., Milner, R. et Meloche, G. R. (2005). Predicting Return to Work After Low Back Injury Using the Psychosocial Risk for Occupational Disability Instrument: A Validation Study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(3), 365-376. doi: 10.1007/s10926-005-5943-9
Schultz, I. Z., Crook, J. M., Berkowitz, J., Meloche, G. R., Milner, R., Zuberbier, O. A. et Meloche, W. (2002). Biopsychosocial multivariate predictive model of occupational low back disability. Spine, 27(23), 2720-2725.
Selander, J., Marnetoft, S. U. et Asell, M. (2007). Predictors for successful vocational rehabilitation for clients with back pain problems. Disabil Rehabil, 29(3), 215-220. doi: 10.1080/09638280600756208
Sternang, O., Reynolds, C. A., Finkel, D., Ernsth-Bravell, M., Pedersen, N. L. et Dahl Aslan, A. K. (2015). Factors associated with grip strength decline in older adults. Age Ageing, 44(2), 269-274. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu170
van Steenbergen, E., van Dongen, J. M., Wendel-Vos, G. C., Hildebrandt, V. H. et Strijk, J. E. (2016). Insights into the concept of vitality: associations with participation and societal costs. Eur J Public Health, 26(2), 354-359. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv194
Ware, J. E., Jr. et Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care, 30(6), 473-483. Tiré de
Wood, C., Magnello, M. et Jewell, T. (1990). Measuring vitality. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 83(8), 486-489.
Tools for measuring the “Mental vitality” factor
Tool | Tool name (click on link for detailed description and access) |
Number of questions (or items) | Tool quality* |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Name of tool 1 | ||
2 | Name of tool 2 | ||
3 | Name of tool 3 | ||
4 | Name of tool 4 | ||
* Overall value assigned to measurement tools (☆☆☆, ☆☆, ☆) taking into account scientific and practical considerations. (interlien vers Return to Work: The Perspective of Health Care Professionals, Insurers and Other Stakeholders – L’incapacité et le retour au travail |