Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Matching Perceived Physical Capacity and Work Demands: A New Classification of the Modified Spinal Function Sort (M-SFS)

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose The aims of this study were (1) to develop a new classification for the scores of the Modified Spinal Function Sort (M-SFS) which is related to the level of physical work demands and (2) to test the predictive value of the M-SFS classification. Methods The classification was carried out in 194 subjects with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) attending a work-related medical rehabilitation from four rehabilitation centers. External criterion was a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE)-based work capacity estimation according to the classification used in Germany (“REFA”) which differentiates between light, light to medium, medium and heavy work. The optimal cut-offs for the M-SFS were allocated using the Youden index. Logistic regression models were calculated based on 147 subjects who participated in the follow-up survey to evaluate the predictive validity of the M-SFS classification with regard to sustainable return to work (RTW; employment at the 3-month follow-up combined with a low level of sick leave). Results Cut-offs for M-SFS scores were 44 (light work), 54 (light to medium work), 62 (medium work) and 73 (heavy work). A match between the M-SFS category and the level of physical work demands was associated with a more than threefold higher RTW chance compared to subjects with a negative discrepancy. In case the M-SFS category was above the physical demand level the RTW-chance was more than 13-fold higher. Conclusions M-SFS scores can be classified into four levels of physical work demands. If the perceived work capacity matches or exceeds the level of physical work demands patients with MSD have a substantially higher probability to return to work after rehabilitation. More studies are needed to confirm or reject our findings and overcome some of the weaknesses of this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murray CJL, Barber RM, Foreman KJ, Ozgoren AA, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition. Lancet. 2015;386:2145–2191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (DRV). Rehab report 2019 [German]. Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAUA). Safety and health at work—reporting year 2018 [German]. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bethge M, Markus M, Streibelt M, Gerlich C, Schuler M. Effects of nationwide implementation of work-related medical rehabilitation in Germany: propensity score matched analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2019;76:913–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Streibelt M, Buschmann-Steinhage R. A profile of requirements for the performance of work related medical rehabilitation from the perspective of the statutory pension insurance [German]. Die Rehabil. 2011;50:160–167.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Heerkens Y, Engels J, Kuiper C, Van der Gulden J, Oostendorp R. The use of the ICF to describe work related factors influencing the health of employees. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:1060–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. King PM, Tuckwell N, Barrett TE. A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther. 1998;78:852–866.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (DRV). Guideline for work-related medical rehabilitation of the German Pension Insurance [German]. Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Streibelt M, Blume C, Thren K, Reneman MF, Mueller-Fahrnow W. Value of functional capacity evaluation information in a clinical setting for predicting return to work. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bühne D, Alles T, Hetzel C, Streibelt M, Froböse I, Bethge M. Predictive validity of a customized functional capacity evaluation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2020;93:635–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rahman A, Reed E, Underwood M, Shipley ME, Omar RZ. Factors affecting self-efficacy and pain intensity in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain seen in a specialist rheumatology pain clinic. Rheumatology. 2008;47:1803–1808.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuijer PP, Gouttebarge V, Wind H, van Duivenbooden C, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Prognostic value of self-reported work ability and performance-based lifting tests for sustainable return to work among construction workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(6):600–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Matheson LN, Matheson ML, Grant J. Development of a measure of perceived functional ability. J Occup Rehabil. 1993;3:15–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Janssen S, Trippolini MA, Hilfiker R, Oesch P. Development of a modified version of the spinal function sort (M-SFS): a mixed method approach. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26:253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Trippolini MA, Janssen S, Hilfiker R, Oesch P. Measurement properties of the modified spinal function sort (M-SFS): is it reliable and valid in workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain? J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28:322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. U.S. Department of Labor. Dictionary of occupational titles (DOT): Revised fourth edition, 1991.

  17. Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (DRV). The medical rehab discharge report [German]. Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K, Klockars M. Changes in the work ability of active employees as measured by the work ability index over an 11-year period. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23:49–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tisch A. Health, work ability and work motivation: determinants of labour market exit among German employees born in 1959 and 1965. J Labour Market Res. 2015;48:233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thiele C. Package‘cutpointr’, version 1.0.32—determine and evaluate optimal cutpoints in binary classification tasks. 2020. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cutpointr/cutpointr.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2020.

  21. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. de Vries HJ, Reneman MF, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB, Brouwer S. Self-reported work ability and work performance in workers with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Swinkels-Meewisse IEJ, Roelofs J, Oostendorp RAB, Verbeek ALM, Vlaeyen JWS. Acute low back pain: pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing influence physical performance and perceived disability. Pain. 2006;120:36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lakke SE, Wittink H, Geertzen JH, van der Schans CP, Reneman MF. Factors that affect functional capacity in patients with musculoskeletal pain: a Delphi study among scientists, clinicians, and patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:446–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ansuategui Echeita J, Bethge M, van Holland BJ, Gross DP, Kool J, Oesch P, et al. Functional capacity evaluation in different societal contexts: results of a multicountry study. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29:222–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stratford PW, Kennedy DM. Performance measures were necessary to obtain a complete picture of osteoarthritic patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:160–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Steenstra IA, Munhall C, Irvin E, Oranye N, Passmore S, van Eerd D, et al. Systematic review of prognostic factors for return to work in workers with sub acute and chronic low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27:369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the German Pension Insurance [DRKS00014831]. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Quality Assurance in Prevention and Rehabilitation at the German Sport University Cologne (IQPR), Eupener Str. 70, 50933, Cologne, Germany

    David Bühne, Torsten Alles & Christian Hetzel

  2. Department of Rehabilitation, German Federal Pension Insurance, Ruhrstr. 2, 10704, Berlin, Germany

    Marco Streibelt

  3. Department of Health, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Murtenstrasse 10, 3008, Bern, Switzerland

    Maurizio Trippolini

  4. University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, Freiburgstrasse 18, 3010, Bern, Switzerland

    Maurizio Trippolini

  5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown Navy Yard, 36 1st Avenue, Boston, MA, 02129-4557, USA

    Maurizio Trippolini

Authors
  1. David Bühne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torsten Alles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Hetzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marco Streibelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maurizio Trippolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Bühne.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have not conflict of interest. The author Maurizio Trippolini was involved in the development of the M-SFS. Marco Streibelt is working at the German Pension Insurance.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as modified in 2000.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bühne, D., Alles, T., Hetzel, C. et al. Matching Perceived Physical Capacity and Work Demands: A New Classification of the Modified Spinal Function Sort (M-SFS). J Occup Rehabil 32, 96–102 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09986-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09986-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation