Does the economy affect functional restoration outcomes for patients with chronic disabling occupational musculoskeletal disorders?

Meredith M Hartzell, Tom G Mayer, Randy Neblett, Dennis J Marquardt, Robert J Gatchel
Author Information
  1. Meredith M Hartzell: PRIDE Research Foundation, 5701 Maple Ave. #100, Dallas, TX, 75235, USA.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine how the economy affects psychosocial and socioeconomic treatment outcomes in a cohort of chronic disabling occupational musculoskeletal disorder (CDOMD) patients who completed a functional restoration program (FRP).
METHODS: A cohort of 969 CDOMD patients with active workers' compensation claims completed an FRP (a medically-supervised, quantitatively-directed exercise progression program, with multi-modal disability management). A good economy (GE) group (n = 532) was released to work during a low unemployment period (2005-2007), and a poor economy (PE) group (n = 437) was released during a higher unemployment period (2008-2010). Patients were evaluated upon admission for demographic and psychosocial variables, and were reassessed at discharge. Socioeconomic outcomes, including work return and work retention 1 year post-discharge, were collected.
RESULTS: Some significant differences in psychosocial self-report data were found, but most of the effect sizes were small, so caution should be made when interpreting the data. Compared to the PE group, the GE group reported more depressive symptoms and disability at admission, but demonstrated a larger decrease in depressive symptoms and disability and increase in self-reported quality of life at discharge. The PE group had lower rates of work return and retention 1-year after discharge, even after controlling for other factors such as length of disability and admission work status.
CONCLUSIONS: CDOMD patients who completed an FRP in a PE year were less likely to return to, or retain, work 1-year after discharge, demonstrating that a PE can be an additional barrier to post-discharge work outcomes. A difference in State unemployment rates of <3% (7 vs. 5%) had a disproportionate effect on patients' failure to return to (19 vs. 6%) or retain (28 vs. 15%) work.

References

  1. Eur Spine J. 2011 May;20(5):731-6 [PMID: 21132556]
  2. Value Health. 2004 Jan-Feb;7(1):61-9 [PMID: 14720131]
  3. J Rheumatol. 1995 Mar;22(3):505-13 [PMID: 7783071]
  4. J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Jun;15(2):191-201 [PMID: 15844676]
  5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Oct 15;29(20):2290-302; discussion 2303 [PMID: 15480144]
  6. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 May 15;28(10):1051-60 [PMID: 12768148]
  7. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011 Mar;37(2):81-4 [PMID: 21267526]
  8. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  9. JAMA. 1987 Oct 2;258(13):1763-7 [PMID: 2957520]
  10. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(13-14):1262-71 [PMID: 21034307]
  11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jul 15;31(16):1850-7 [PMID: 16845363]
  12. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004 Jun;58(6):501-6 [PMID: 15143119]
  13. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961 Jun;4:561-71 [PMID: 13688369]
  14. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60 [PMID: 19897823]
  15. J Occup Rehabil. 1994 Jun;4(2):113-22 [PMID: 24234330]
  16. Paraplegia. 1995 Jul;33(7):367-73 [PMID: 7478724]
  17. J Occup Rehabil. 2006 Mar;16(1):75-94 [PMID: 16752090]
  18. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Oct 1;31(21):2510-5 [PMID: 17023863]
  19. J Occup Rehabil. 2004 Dec;14(4):267-79 [PMID: 15638257]
  20. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247-63 [PMID: 8450681]
  21. J Rehabil Med. 2005 Jan;37(1):17-22 [PMID: 15788328]
  22. Orthop Rev. 1988 Dec;17(12):1210-5 [PMID: 2975372]
  23. Occup Environ Med. 1996 Jul;53(7):488-94 [PMID: 8704875]
  24. Eur Spine J. 2007 May;16(5):641-55 [PMID: 16868783]
  25. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Oct 1;23(19):2110-6; discussion 2117 [PMID: 9794056]
  26. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Summer;16(3):849-63 [PMID: 11028140]
  27. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985 Jul-Aug;10(6):482-93 [PMID: 2934829]
  28. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Mar 15;39(6):503-8 [PMID: 24384661]
  29. Occup Med (Lond). 2013 Oct;63(7):501-6 [PMID: 24027219]
  30. J Prof Nurs. 2007 Jan-Feb;23(1):13-20 [PMID: 17292129]
  31. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Feb;14(2):157-61 [PMID: 2522243]
  32. Pain. 2011 May;152(5):1044-1051 [PMID: 21306826]
  33. J Neurotrauma. 2012 Mar 20;29(5):889-97 [PMID: 21510819]
  34. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 Spring;20(2):214-21 [PMID: 15209181]

MeSH Term

Adult
Chronic Disease
Cohort Studies
Disabled Persons
Economics
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Musculoskeletal Diseases
Occupational Diseases
Psychology
Recovery of Function
Rehabilitation, Vocational
Return to Work
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Unemployment
United States
Workers' Compensation

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0workgroupPEeconomyoutcomespatientsdisabilitydischargereturnpsychosocialCDOMDcompletedFRPunemploymentadmissionvscohortchronicdisablingoccupationalmusculoskeletalfunctionalrestorationprogramGEn=releasedperiodretentionyearpost-dischargedataeffectdepressivesymptomsrates1-yearretainPURPOSE:determineaffectssocioeconomictreatmentdisorderMETHODS:969activeworkers'compensationclaimsmedically-supervisedquantitatively-directedexerciseprogressionmulti-modalmanagementgood532low2005-2007poor437higher2008-2010PatientsevaluatedupondemographicvariablesreassessedSocioeconomicincluding1collectedRESULTS:significantdifferencesself-reportfoundsizessmallcautionmadeinterpretingComparedreporteddemonstratedlargerdecreaseincreaseself-reportedqualitylifelowerevencontrollingfactorslengthstatusCONCLUSIONS:lesslikelydemonstratingcanadditionalbarrierdifferenceState<3%75%disproportionatepatients'failure196%2815%affectdisorders?

Similar Articles

Cited By