Perceived health improvement (Health factor for workers with an MSD)

Interpretation of the “Perceived health improvement” factor

A perceived health improvement positively influences RTW or sickness absence duration.

Definition of the “Perceived health improvement” factor

Short definition: A perceived health improvement refers to an improvement in an individual’s perceived health status across various dimensions.

To find out more:

A perceived health improvement positively influences RTW in workers with an MSD (Post, Krol et Groothoff, 2006; Schultz, I., Z. et al., 2004; Schultz, I. Z. et al., 2002). An overall self-rating of health provides a simple (one question), direct, and global way of capturing perceptions of health using criteria that are as broad and inclusive as the responding individual chooses to make them (Idler et Benyamini, 1997). This is a measure allowing to open the topic of health status in an interview (Idler et Benyamini, 1997). Assessing overall (one question) health change may present the same attributes as it refers to an improvement in an individual’s self-reported health status across various dimensions. As such, it may signify a shift toward better physical functioning, reduced pain, improved emotional well-being, and enhanced social interactions, to name a few dimensions. It may also reflect family history, the presence/absence of external social-environment or personal resources, and may influence behaviors (preventive practices, adherence to treatment) that subsequently affect health status (Idler et Benyamini, 1997). This may explain why such overall self-assessment of health are more predictive than medical records or other specific indicators of health status (Idler et Benyamini, 1997). Moreover, other global self-assessments, such as RTW or recovery expectations, are likely to work in a similar way to predict RTW (Carrière et al., 2023; Ebrahim et al., 2015).

As an example, a perceived health improvement, compared to one year ago, can be measured at the baseline assessment using this question of the SF-36 or RAND-36 questionnaire (Hays, Sherbourne et Mazel, 1993): Compared to one year ago, how would you rate your health in general now? (choice of answers ranging from 1. Much better… to 5. Much worse than a year ago). This “relative” health status was shown as a more powerful and consistent predictor of RTW than perceived pre-injury health (Schultz, I., Z. et al., 2004).

Carrière, J. S., Donayre Pimentel, S., Bou Saba, S., Boehme, B., Berbiche, D., Coutu, M. F. et Durand, M. J. (2023). Recovery expectations can be assessed with single-item measures: findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of recovery expectations on return-to-work outcomes after musculoskeletal pain conditions. Pain, 164(4), e190-e206. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002789

Ebrahim, S., Malachowski, C., Kamal El Din, M., Mulla, S. M., Montoya, L., Bance, S. et Busse, J. W. (2015). Measures of patients’ expectations about recovery: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil, 25(1), 240-255. doi: 10.1007/s10926-014-9535-4

Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D. et Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ, 2(3), 217-227. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020305

Idler, E. L. et Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav, 38(1), 21-37.

Post, M., Krol, B. et Groothoff, J. W. (2006). Self-rated health as a predictor of return to work among employees on long-term sickness absence. Disabil Rehabil, 28(5), 289-297. doi: 10.1080/09638280500160303

Schultz, I., Z., Crook, J., Meloche, G. R., Berkowitz, J., Milner, R., Zuberbier, O. A. et Meloche, W. (2004). Psychosocial factors predictive of occupational low back disability: towards development of a return-to-work model. Pain, 107(1-2), 77-85.

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.

Tools for measuring the “Perceived health improvement” 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