BACKGROUND: Physical therapists' recommendations to patients to avoid daily physical activity can be influenced by the therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs. Little is known about the amount of influence of a physical therapist's kinesiophobic beliefs on a patient's actual lifting capacity during a lifting test.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the influence of physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs on lifting capacity in healthy people.DESIGN: A blinded, cluster-randomized cross-sectional study was performed.METHODS: The participants (n=256; 105 male, 151 female) were physical therapist students who performed a lifting capacity test. Examiners (n=24) were selected from second-year physical therapist students. Participants in group A (n=124) were tested in the presence of an examiner with high scores on the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for health care providers (TSK-HC), and those in group B (n=132) were tested in the presence of an examiner with low scores on the TSK-HC. Mixed-model analyses were performed on lifting capacity to test for possible (interacting) effects.RESULTS: Mean lifting capacity was 32.1 kg (SD=13.6) in group A and 39.6 kg (SD=16.4) in group B. Mixed-model analyses revealed that after controlling for sex, body weight, self-efficacy, and the interaction between the examiners' and participants' kinesiophobic beliefs, the influence of examiners' kinesiophobic beliefs significantly reduced lifting capacity by 14.4 kg in participants with kinesiophobic beliefs and 8.0 kg in those without kinesiophobic beliefs.LIMITATIONS: Generalizability to physical therapists and patients with pain should be studied.CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapists' kinesiophobic beliefs negatively influence lifting capacity of healthy adults. During everyday clinical practice, physical therapists should be aware of the influence of their kinesiophobic beliefs on patients' functional ability.
DOCUMENT
Background: Functional Capacity (FC) is a multidimensional construct within the activity domain of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF). Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are assessments of work-related FC. The extent to which these work-related FC tests are associated to bio-, psycho-, or social factors is unknown. The aims of this study were to test relationships between FC tests and other ICF factors in a sample of healthy workers, and to determine the amount of statistical variance in FC tests that can be explained by these factors. Methods: A cross sectional study. The sample was comprised of 403 healthy workers who completed material handling FC tests (lifting low, overhead lifting, and carrying) and static work FC tests (overhead working and standing forward bend). The explainable variables were; six muscle strength tests; aerobic capacity test; and questionnaires regarding personal factors (age, gender, body height, body weight, and education), psychological factors (mental health, vitality, and general health perceptions), and social factors (perception of work, physical workloads, sport-, leisure time-, and work-index). A priori construct validity hypotheses were formulated and analyzed by means of correlation coefficients and regression analyses. Results: Moderate correlations were detected between material handling FC tests and muscle strength, gender, body weight, and body height. As for static work FC tests; overhead working correlated fair with aerobic capacity and handgrip strength, and low with the sport-index and perception of work. For standing forward bend FC test, all hypotheses were rejected. The regression model revealed that 61% to 62% of material handling FC tests were explained by physical factors. Five to 15% of static work FC tests were explained by physical and social factors. Conclusions: The current study revealed that, in a sample of healthy workers, material handling FC tests were related to physical factors but not to the psychosocial factors measured in this study. The construct of static work FC tests remained largely unexplained.
LINK
Objective: Psychophysical lift capacity tests are lifting tests in which the performance, expressed in Newtons, is divided by the perceived exertion, expressed on a Borg scale. The aim of this study was to analyse test-retest reliability of psychophysical lift capacity tests.Subjects: Patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (n=20) and healthy subjects (n=20).Methods: Psychophysical lift capacity tests were assessed during a back school intake at the Centre for Rehabilitation of the University Medical Centre Groningen. Patients on the waiting list and healthy subjects were assessed twice, with a 2-week interval between assessments. Intra-class correlation (ICC) was calculated as a measure of reliability. An ICC ≥0.75 was considered as an acceptable reliability. Limits of agreement as a measure for natural variation were calculated.Results: The psychophysical static and dynamic lift capacity tests showed good reliability (ICC ≥0.75). The limits of agreement are substantial, indicating a considerable natural variation between test-sessions for all psychophysical tests.Conclusion: The psychophysical static lift capacity and dynamic lifting capacity are reliable instruments for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and healthy subjects. However, a substantial amount of natural variation should be taken into account between 2 test sessions when interpreting the test results clinically.
DOCUMENT
Musculoskeletal pain is caused by risk factors for acquiring pain and prognostic factors for the persistence of prolonged pain and is the number one causal reason for restricted participation at work. Many studies have been performed on the reasons for acquiring and the continuance of musculoskeletal pain, however, a comprehensive overview does not exist. Musculoskeletal pain may result in a reduction of the ability to perform physical work.To determine whether a person’s functional capacity is high enough to performwork, standardized functional capacity tests can be executed. One example offunctional capacity tests is to measure lifting capacity. These tests are defined as an evaluation of the capacity of activities that is used to make recommendations for participation in work while considering the person’s body functions and structures, environmental factors, personal factors and health status. How many of the latter components that should be taken into account are unclear. The results of this study can support health care professionals providing care to patients in the field of work participation by making informed decisions during diagnostic procedures.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity tests are standardized instruments to evaluate patients' capacities to execute work-related activities. Functional capacity test results are associated with biopsychosocial factors, making it unclear what is being measured in capacity testing. An overview of these factors was missing. The objective of this review was to investigate the level of evidence for factors that are associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed identifying relevant studies from an electronic journal databases search. Candidate studies employed a cross-sectional or RCT design and were published between 1980 and October 2010. The quality of these studies was determined and level of evidence was reported for factors that were associated with capacity results in at least 3 studies.RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. The level of evidence was reported for lifting low, lifting high, carrying, and static lifting capacity. Lifting low test results were associated with self-reported disability and specific self-efficacy but not with pain duration. There was conflicting evidence for associations of lifting low with pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, depression, gender and age. Lifting high was associated with gender and specific self-efficacy, but not with pain intensity or age. There is conflicting evidence for the association of lifting high with the factors self-reported disability, pain duration and depression. Carrying was associated with self-reported disability and not with pain intensity and there is conflicting evidence for associations with specific self-efficacy, gender and age. Static lifting was associated with fear of movement/(re)injury.CONCLUSIONS: Much heterogeneity was observed in investigated capacity tests and candidate associated factors. There was some evidence for biological and psychological factors that are or are not associated with capacity results but there is also much conflicting evidence. High level evidence for social factors was absent.
LINK
CC-BY Applied Ergonomics, 2021, March https://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-ergonomics Purpose: To analyze progression of changes in kinematics and work physiology during progressive lifting in healthy adults.Methods: Healthy participants were recruited. A standardized lifting test from the WorkWell Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) was administered, with five progressive lifting low series of five repetitions. The criteria of the WorkWell observation protocol were studied: changes in muscle use (EMG), heart rate (heart rate monitor), base of support, posture and movement pattern (motion capture system). Repeated measures ANOVA’s were used to analyze changes during progressive workloads.Results: 18 healthy young adults participated (8 men, 10 women; mean age 22 years). Mean maximum weight lifted was 66 (±3.2) and 44 (±7.4) kg for men and women, respectively. With progressive loads, statistically significant (p < 0.01) differences were observed: increase in secondary muscle use at moderate lifting, increase of heart rate, increase of base of support and movement pattern changes were observed; differences in posture were not significant.Conclusions: Changes in 4 out of 5 kinematic and work physiology parameters were objectively quantified using lab technology during progressive lifting in healthy adults. These changes appear in line with existing observation criteria.
MULTIFILE
INTRODUCTION: The Work Well Functional Capacity Evaluation (WW FCE) is a two-day performance based test consisting of several work-related activities. Three lifting and carrying test items may be performed on both days. The objective of this study was to assess the need for repeated testing of these items in subjects with early osteoarthritis of the hip and/or the knee and to analyze sources of variation between the 2 days of measurement.METHODS: A standardized WW FCE protocol was applied, including repeated testing of lifting low, lifting overhead and carrying. Differences and associations between the 2 days were calculated using paired samples t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and limits of agreement (LoA). Possible sources of individual variation between the 2 days were identified by Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for differences in performances between days and differences in possible sources of variation between days.RESULTS: Seventy-nine subjects participated in this study, their mean (SD) age was 56.6 (4.8) years, median (min-max) WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) index scores for pain, stiffness and physical function were 5 (0-17), 3 (0-7) and 14 (0-49), respectively. Median (min-max) SF36 physical function was 75 (5-95), and SF36 pain score was 67 (12-76). Mean performance differences ranged from -0.2 to -0.8 kg (P > 0.05). ICC's ranged from 0.75 (lifting overhead) to 0.88 (lifting low). LoA were: lifting low 8.0 kg; lifting overhead 6.5 kg; carrying 9.0 kg. Pearson's correlations were low and non-significant.CONCLUSIONS: All three tests show acceptable two-day consistency. WW FCE testing on two consecutive days is not necessary for groups of subjects with early osteoarthritis. Individual sources of variation could not be identified.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: Patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) may experience functional limitations in work settings. In the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee study (CHECK) physical function was both self-reported and measured performance-based, using Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE). Relations between self-reported scores on SF-36 and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Arthritis Index, function scales) and FCE performance were studied, and their diagnostic value for clinicians in predicting observed physical work limitations was assessed.METHODS: Ninety-two subjects scored physical function on SF-36 (scale 0-100, 100 indicating the best health level) and WOMAC (scale 0-68, 68 indicates maximum restriction) and performed the FCE. Correlations were calculated between all scores. Cross-tables were constructed using both questionnaires as diagnostic tests to identify work limitations. Subjects lifting <22.5 kg on the FCE-test 'lifting-low' were labeled as having physical work limitations. Diagnostic aspects at different cut-off scores for both questionnaires were analysed.RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations (Spearman's rho 0.34-0.49) were found between questionnaire scores and lifting and carrying tests. Results of a diagnostic cross-table with cut-off point <60 on SF-36 'physical functioning' were: sensitivity 0.34, specificity 0.97 and positive predictive value (PV+) 0.95. Cut-off point > or =21 on WOMAC 'function' resulted in sensitivity 0.51, specificity 0.88 and PV+ 0.88.CONCLUSION: Low self-reported function scores on SF-36 and WOMAC diagnosed subjects with limitations on the FCE. However, high scores did not guarantee performance without physical work limitations. These results are specific to the tested persons with early OA, in populations with a different prevalence of limitations, different diagnostic values will be found. FCE may be indicated to help clinicians to assess actual work capacity.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus on the most important biopsychosocial factors that influence functional capacity results in patients with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain, arranged in the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.DESIGN: Three-round, internet-based Delphi survey.SETTING: Not applicable.PARTICIPANTS: Participants were scientists, clinicians, and patients familiar with functional capacity testing. Scientists were invited through purposive sampling based on the number of relevant publications in peer-reviewed journals. The scientists recruited clinicians and patients through snowball sampling.INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus was reached if at least moderate influence (25%) was achieved and an interquartile range of no more than 1 point was reached.RESULTS: Thirty-three scientists, 21 clinicians, and 21 patients from 9 countries participated. Participants reached consensus on 6 factors that can influence the outcome of the lifting test, having a median of severe influence (50%-95%): catastrophic thoughts and fear, patient adherence to "doctor's orders," internal and external motivation, muscle power, chronic pain behavior, and avoidance behavior. Motivation, chronic pain behavior, and sensation of pain were the top 3 factors affecting postural tolerance and repetitive movement functional capacity tests. Furthermore, participants reported 28 factors having a median of moderate influence (25%-49%) that could influence the outcome of lifting, postural tolerance, and repetitive movement tests.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, chronic pain behavior, motivation, and sensation of pain are the main factors that can influence functional capacity results. We recommend that scientists and clinicians, respectively, consider the most important factors when planning future studies and when interpreting functional capacity test results.
LINK
In the first half of the 20th century, the individual life course was largely determined by ‘standard biographies’ (Du Bois-Reymond, 1998; Meijers & Wesselingh, 1999) whereby identity – the story individuals tell themselves and share with others about the meaning of their lives (Meijers & Lengelle, 2012) – was constructed on the basis of socially prescribed ‘master narratives’ (Davies & Harré, 1990) or ‘grand narratives’ (Lyotard, 1984). This pattern changed in the second half of the 20th century with the advent of secularization, the lifting of socio-political barriers, growing prosperity and mobility and the resulting increase in possible choices. The ‘prescriptive power’ of these narratives became increasingly contested, especially by young people, resulting in a growing individualization of society (Bauman, 2001; Giddens, 1991). For most people, this movement towards individualization was not problematic as long as the ever-growing prosperity made it possible to have a second or third chance to make new choices. However, society soon became a risk society (Beck, 1992). LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/reinekke-lengelle-phd-767a4322/
MULTIFILE
