The Associations Between Illness Perceptions and Expectations About Return to Work of Workers With Chronic Diseases and Their Significant Others: A Dyadic Analysis.

N C Snippen, H J de Vries, C A M Roelen, S Brouwer, M Hagedoorn
Author Information
  1. N C Snippen: Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands. n.c.snippen@umcg.nl. ORCID
  2. H J de Vries: Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands. ORCID
  3. C A M Roelen: Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands. ORCID
  4. S Brouwer: Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands. ORCID
  5. M Hagedoorn: Department of Health Sciences, Health Psychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. ORCID

Abstract

Purpose To examine the associations between illness perceptions and expectations about full return to work (RTW) of workers with chronic diseases and their significant others. Methods This study used cross-sectional data of 94 dyads consisting of workers with chronic diseases and their significant others. We performed dyadic analyses based on the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM), estimating associations of illness perceptions of the two members of the dyad with their own expectations about the worker's full RTW within six months (actor effect) as well as with the other dyad member's expectations about the worker's RTW (partner effect). Results Illness perceptions of one dyad member were significantly associated with his or her own RTW expectations (actor effect composite illness perceptions score; B = -0.05, p < .001; r = .37) and with the other dyad member's RTW expectations (partner effect composite illness perceptions score; B = -0.04, p < .001; r = .35). That is, more negative illness perceptions of one member of the dyad were associated with more negative RTW expectations in both dyad members. For most illness perception domains, we found small to moderate actor and partner effects on RTW expectations (r range: .23-.44). Conclusions This study suggests that illness perceptions and RTW expectations should be considered at a dyadic level as workers and their significant others influence each other's beliefs. When trying to facilitate adaptive illness perceptions and RTW expectations, involving significant others may be more effective than an individualistic approach targeted at the worker only.

Keywords

References

  1. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Oct 14;12:236 [PMID: 21999726]
  2. J Psychosom Res. 2009 Jul;67(1):11-5 [PMID: 19539813]
  3. J Pain. 2019 Oct;20(10):1176-1186 [PMID: 30954540]
  4. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008 Oct;82(1):13-20 [PMID: 18188579]
  5. Health Psychol. 2015 May;34(5):486-95 [PMID: 25730611]
  6. J Occup Rehabil. 2022 Dec;32(4):575-590 [PMID: 35152369]
  7. Phys Ther. 2013 Apr;93(4):435-48 [PMID: 23162040]
  8. Br J Health Psychol. 2013 Feb;18(1):83-96 [PMID: 22709363]
  9. Clin Psychol Rev. 2015 Dec;42:28-46 [PMID: 26295276]
  10. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 25;2019(11): [PMID: 31765487]
  11. J Occup Rehabil. 2014 Mar;24(1):160-70 [PMID: 23595310]
  12. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Jan 30;14:48 [PMID: 23363454]
  13. BMJ Open. 2014 Mar 03;4(3):e004321 [PMID: 24589824]
  14. Psychol Bull. 2007 Nov;133(6):920-54 [PMID: 17967089]
  15. J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Mar;22(1):15-26 [PMID: 21701951]
  16. Int J Behav Med. 2014 Apr;21(2):230-9 [PMID: 23436184]
  17. Am Psychol. 2003 Jan;58(1):78-9 [PMID: 12674822]
  18. Psychooncology. 2013 Jun;22(6):1375-80 [PMID: 22930492]
  19. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017 Feb;13:44-48 [PMID: 28813292]
  20. Cephalalgia. 2009 Mar;29(3):338-50 [PMID: 19175776]
  21. Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Dec;44(26):8252-8263 [PMID: 34904485]
  22. PLoS One. 2017 Feb 2;12(2):e0170525 [PMID: 28151967]
  23. Man Ther. 2012 Aug;17(4):330-5 [PMID: 22483222]
  24. J Physiother. 2012;58(3):165-72 [PMID: 22884183]
  25. J Psychosom Res. 2006 Jun;60(6):631-7 [PMID: 16731240]
  26. Psychiatr Danub. 2021 Spring-Summer;33(Suppl 4):432-440 [PMID: 34718261]
  27. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010 Aug;83(6):595-605 [PMID: 20130906]
  28. Am J Manag Care. 2011 Feb;17(2):105-13 [PMID: 21473660]
  29. Psychol Health. 2016 Oct;31(10):1203-19 [PMID: 27315836]
  30. Psychol Health. 2009 Apr;24(4):473-87 [PMID: 20205006]
  31. J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Sep;29(3):475-482 [PMID: 30151631]
  32. J Health Psychol. 2014 Nov;19(11):1347-57 [PMID: 23740262]
  33. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1912-41 [PMID: 22963394]
  34. Occup Med (Lond). 2009 Dec;59(8):550-5 [PMID: 19704030]
  35. J Occup Rehabil. 2006 Dec;16(4):685-95 [PMID: 17063403]
  36. BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 21;9(1):e021742 [PMID: 30670501]
  37. Br J Health Psychol. 2009 Feb;14(Pt 1):1-16 [PMID: 18230194]

MeSH Term

Male
Female
Humans
Return to Work
Motivation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Chronic Disease

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0expectationsRTWillnessperceptionsdyadsignificantotherseffectworkersactorpartnerassociationsfullchronicdiseasesstudydyadicmembersworker'smember'sIllnessonememberassociatedcompositescoreB = -0p <001r = negativeReturnWorkChronicPurposeexaminereturnworkMethodsusedcross-sectionaldata94dyadsconsistingperformedanalysesbasedActor-PartnerInterdependenceModelAPIMestimatingtwowithinsixmonthswellResultssignificantly05370435perceptiondomainsfoundsmallmoderateeffectsrrange:23-44Conclusionssuggestsconsideredlevelinfluenceother'sbeliefstryingfacilitateadaptiveinvolvingmayeffectiveindividualisticapproachtargetedworkeronlyAssociationsPerceptionsExpectationsWorkersDiseasesSignificantOthers:DyadicAnalysisDiseaseInterpersonalRelationsPsychologicalAdaptation

Similar Articles

Cited By