title: Work ability assessment in a worker population: comparison and determinants of Work Ability Index and Work Ability score.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Public authorities in European countries are paying increasing attention to the promotion of work ability throughout working life and the best method to monitor work ability in populations of workers is becoming a significant question. The present study aims to compare the assessment of work ability based on the use of the Work Ability Index (WAI), a 7-item questionnaire, with another one based on the use of WAI's first item, which consists in the worker's self-assessment of his/her current work ability level as opposed to his/her lifetime best, this single question being termed "Work Ability score" (WAS).
  
  
  METHODS
  Using a database created by an occupational health service, the study intends to answer the following questions: could the assessment of work ability be based on a single-item measure and which are the variables significantly associated with self-reported work ability among those systematically recorded by the occupational physician during health examinations? A logistic regression model was used in order to estimate the probability of observing "poor" or "moderate" WAI levels depending on age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, position held, firm size and diseases reported by the worker in a population of workers aged 40 to 65 and examined between January 2006 and June 2010 (n=12389).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The convergent validity between WAS and WAI was statistically significant (rs=0.63). In the multivariable model, age (p<0.001), reported diseases (OR=1.13, 95%CI [1.11-1.15]) and holding a position mostly characterized by physical activity (OR=1.67, 95%CI [1.49-1.87]) increased the probability of reporting moderate or poor work ability. A work position characterized by the predominance of mental activity (OR=0.71, 95%CI [0.61-0.84]) had a favourable impact on work ability. These relations were observed regardless of the work ability measurement tool used.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The convergent validity and the similarity in results between WAI and WAS observed in a large population of employed workers should thus foster the use of WAS for systematic screening of work ability. Ageing, overweight, decline in health status, holding a mostly physical job and working in a large-sized firm increase the risk of presenting moderate or poor work ability.
authors.affiliation: Public Health Department, Liège University, Liège, Belgium.
authors.forename: Mehdi
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: El Fassi
authors.forename: Valery
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Bocquet
authors.forename: Nicole
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Majery
authors.forename: Marie Lise
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Lair
authors.forename: Sophie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Couffignal
authors.forename: Philippe
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Mairiaux
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016208:Databases, Factual; D005060:Europe; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009786:Occupational Health Services; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012307:Risk Factors; D012647:Self-Assessment; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014938:Work Capacity Evaluation
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23 Suppl 1:66-71
references.pmid: 9247997
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006 Feb;32(1):75-84
references.pmid: 16539175
references.citation: CMAJ. 2011 Mar 8;183(4):E235-42
references.pmid: 21282315
references.citation: J Occup Environ Med. 2001 Aug;43(8):723-30
references.pmid: 11515256
references.citation: Chronobiol Int. 2006;23(6):1165-79
references.pmid: 17190703
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31 Suppl 2:31-6
references.pmid: 16363444
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 2001 May;51(3):209-17
references.pmid: 11385126
references.citation: Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2006;12(4):417-27
references.pmid: 17156617
references.citation: J Bras Pneumol. 2009 Jan;35(1):73-82
references.pmid: 19219334
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 2001 Aug;51(5):318-24
references.pmid: 11473138
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 2003 May;53(3):191-200
references.pmid: 12724553
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012 Nov;38(6):600-3
references.pmid: 22538928
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 2009 Jan;59(1):32-7
references.pmid: 19073989
references.citation: Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008 Feb;81(4):495-501
references.pmid: 17638005
references.citation: Ind Health. 2009 Jul;47(3):271-82
references.pmid: 19531913
references.citation: Scand J Public Health. 2006;34(1):17-25
references.pmid: 16449040
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23 Suppl 1:49-57
references.pmid: 9247995
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010 Sep;36(5):404-12
references.pmid: 20372766
references.citation: Occup Environ Med. 2009 Apr;66(4):211-20
references.pmid: 19017690
references.citation: J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 May;59(5):342-5
references.pmid: 15831678
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 1997 Apr;82(2):247-52
references.pmid: 9109282
references.citation: Scand J Work Environ Health. 1991;17 Suppl 1:128-34
references.pmid: 1792526
references.citation: Scand J Rheumatol. 2005 Jul-Aug;34(4):277-83
references.pmid: 16195160
references.citation: Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;48:254-7
references.pmid: 10186522
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 2004 Mar;54(2):115-21
references.pmid: 15020730
references.citation: J Adv Nurs. 2006 Dec;56(5):542-52
references.pmid: 17078829
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 2003 Feb;53(1):65-8
references.pmid: 12576568
references.citation: World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2000;894:i-xii, 1-253
references.pmid: 11234459