Cited by 60Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

Investigating risk factors for chronicity: the importance of distinguishing between return-to-work status and self-report measures of disability

Gauthier, Nathalie, Sullivan, Michael J. L., Adams, Heather, Stanish, William D., Thibault, Pascal·2006·Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether the outcome of psychosocial risk factor analyses varied as a function of whether the outcome variable was return-to-work status or self-reported functional disability. METHODS: Participants were 255 workers who sustained a soft tissue injury to the back and participated in a community-based secondary prevention program. Assessment of psychologic risk factors (pain severity, pain catastrophizing, fear of movement/reinjury, depression) was conducted at pretreatment. RESULTS: Logistic regression revealed that pain catastrophizing (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32-0.88) and pain severity (OR, 0.65; 95% CI = 0.45-0.94) were significant predictors of return to work. However, when change in self-reported disability was used as the outcome variable, none of the psychosocial risk factors emerged as significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Given the important theoretical, clinical, and policy implications of the outcome of risk factor research, more research is needed to further clarify the respective advantages and limitations to using self-reported versus return to work-based measures of disability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.jom.0000184870.81120.49

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interactions between chronic pain patients and their significant others can either help or harm adjustment to chronic pain.

    “It is clear that the interactions between patients with chronic pain and their significant others can either facilitate or impair adjustment to chronic pain 87, 120–122.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gauthier, N., Sullivan, M. J. L., Adams, H., Stanish, W. D., & Thibault, P.
Affiliations
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Sullivan, Michael J. L.
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Published
2006-03
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
312-318
ISSN
1076-2752 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001501122
Cited by
60
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
return to work, self-reported disability, chronicity, psychosocial risk factors, pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, fear of reinjury, depression, secondary prevention, outcome measures
MeSH terms
Adult, Disability Evaluation, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Nova Scotia, Pain Measurement, Psychological Tests, Risk Factors, Workers' Compensation, Logistic Models, Sick Leave, Back Injuries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review