| Autor: |
Louwerse I; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. i.louwerse@amsterdamumc.nl.; Dutch Institute of Employee Benefit Schemes (UWV), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. i.louwerse@amsterdamumc.nl.; Research Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC-UMCG-VUmc-UWV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. i.louwerse@amsterdamumc.nl., Huysmans MA; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Research Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC-UMCG-VUmc-UWV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., van Rijssen HJ; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Dutch Institute of Employee Benefit Schemes (UWV), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Research Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC-UMCG-VUmc-UWV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Gielen CLI; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Dutch Institute of Employee Benefit Schemes (UWV), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Research Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC-UMCG-VUmc-UWV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., van der Beek AJ; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Research Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC-UMCG-VUmc-UWV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Anema JR; Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Research Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC-UMCG-VUmc-UWV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose Assessment of prognosis of work disability is a challenging task for occupational health professionals. An evidence-based decision support tool, based on a prediction model, could aid professionals in the decision-making process. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of such a tool on Dutch insurance physicians' (IPs) prognosis of work ability and their prognostic confidence, and assess IPs' attitudes towards use of the tool. Methods We conducted an experimental study including six case vignettes among 29 IPs. For each vignette, IPs first specified their own prognosis of future work ability and prognostic confidence. Next, IPs were informed about the outcome of the prediction model and asked whether this changed their initial prognosis and prognostic confidence. Finally, respondents reported their attitude towards use of the tool in real practice. Results The concordance between IPs' prognosis and the outcome of the prediction model was low: IPs' prognosis was more positive in 72 (41%) and more negative in 20 (11%) cases. Using the decision support tool, IPs changed their prognosis in only 13% of the cases. IPs prognostic confidence decreased when prognosis was discordant, and remained unchanged when it was concordant. Concerning attitudes towards use, the wish to know more about the tool was considered as the main barrier. Conclusion The efficacy of the tool on IPs' prognosis of work ability and their prognostic confidence was low. Although the perceived barriers were overall limited, only a minority of the IPs indicated that they would be willing to use the tool in practice. |
Full text from SpringerLink