Prognosis in soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: predicting both change in disability and level of disability after treatment.

Shoulder complaints are a common problem in the general population. Incidence figures of 0.9% to 2.5% have been reported for different age groups? A systematic review of the prevalence of shoulder pain in the general population found figures that differed from 6.9% to 26% for point prevalence, 18.6% to 31% for 1-month prevalence, 4.7% to 46.7% for 1-year prevalence, and 6.7% to 66.7% for lifetime prevalence. (2)

Shoulder disorders also are common in the workplace. Workers' Compensation Board statistics in the province of Ontario document high rates of upper-limb disorders, with shoulders representing 6.1% (n=5,786) of all lost time claims in 2002. (3) One surveillance study of largely computer-based workers at a large newspaper in Ontario revealed that 14% of the work force experienced upper-limb symptoms of moderate or worse severity at least once per month or for longer than 1 week over the past year. (4) According to information from a mandatory annual practice survey of all registered physical therapists in Ontario, shoulder disorders were the second most common condition treated by physical therapists in 2002 (Marla Nayer, Director, Quality Programs, College of Physiotherapists of Ontario; personal communication; 2003). Shoulder disorders, therefore, represent a sizable effect on the population, the work force, and physical therapist practices.

Studies report unfavorable outcomes in many patients with new episodes of shoulder problems in primary care. Only 21% of patients reported complete recovery at 6 months, and only 49% of patients reported complete recovery at 18 months. (5) Similarly, van der Windt et al (6) reported that 41% of patients in their sample had persistent or recurrent shoulder complaints after 1 year.

Clinicians often are faced with challenging questions from patients, insurance or compensation providers, administrators, and policy makers about the outcome of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder. Frequent questions include "What will the extent of recovery be?" and "Are there any factors that could delay recovery?" The literature on prognosis and potential prognostic factors in shoulder disorders, however, is limited. Prognostic factors were assessed in 16 studies (5-20) that were identified in the systematic review by Kuijpers et al, (21) and 9 additional shoulder prognostic studies (22-30) that were identified by the first author (CAK). (31) The 9 additional studies have examined other prognostic factors, such as menopause, (25) night pain, (29) side affected, (25) shoulder pain interrupting sleep, (27) muscle wasting, (29) drop arm test, (27) painful arc, (29) radiological findings, (23,26,29) and pain on movement. (29) Excluding the variable "shoulder pain interrupting sleep," none of these factors were found to be significantly associated with the outcome studied.

The systematic review by Kuijpers et al (21) provides a best-evidence synthesis from 6 of 16 identified studies. This systematic review reported strong evidence that high pain intensity predicts poorer outcome in primary care populations (6,8) and that middle age (45-54 years) predicts a poorer outcome in people seeking occupational medicine. (9,10) The review also reported moderate evidence that long duration of complaints and high disability at baseline predict a poorer outcome in primary care. (5,8) The remaining identified studies provided only weak or inconclusive evidence. (21)

Many of the prognostic factors studied in the literature are not in the control of the physical therapist but can be helpful in better predicting the duration or outcome of an episode of care. This information may provide patients with adequate knowledge about their expected clinical course. This prognostic information is necessary for clinicians to distinguish between those patients who are likely to have a favorable outcome versus those who are at risk for more chronic pain or disability. If the prognostic findings can be replicated and evaluated as clinical prediction rules, then they can help guide clinical decision making. (32) In turn, this improved clinical decision making by physical therapists can facilitate better communication with insurance and compensation providers regarding their patients' expected outcome.

Studies of prognosis vary widely in terms of the outcome they are trying to predict. Although outcomes in the literature on soft tissue disorders of the shoulder have focused on pain and range of motion (ROM), patient self-reports of physical function and health are increasingly recognized as important measures in the evaluation of health outcomes (33) and, we would suggest, in prognosis as well. A disability outcome was used in only 4 shoulder prognostic studies (5,17,24,25) of the 25 studies reviewed. Most shoulder prognostic studies have used the following outcomes: symptom, (6,8-10,12,13,19,20,23,28) ROM, (16,18,22) or an aggregate scoring system (ie, some combination of pain, ROM, and function). (7,14.15.26,29,30)

A systematic review of shoulder disability questionnaires identified and evaluated the clinimetric properties of 16 different questionnaires. (34) Overall, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) measure received the strongest ratings for its clinimetric properties. (34) The DASH measure has been validated for shoulder conditions. (35-39) The DASH reflects the effect of the disorder in terms of physical function and symptoms, which are the primary reasons patients seek care for musculoskeletal disorders.

Two approaches could be taken using health status as an outcome. First, a study of prognosis could focus on change in disability from baseline to follow-up, answering the question "What factors predict larger versus smaller change?" Second, it could focus on the follow-up health status alone, answering the question "What factors predict which patients will have higher levels of disability at discharge from rehabilitation?" Either approach provides clinically useful information, but they differ conceptually. Work by Jacobson and colleagues (40,41) suggests that treatment induces a change that moves someone outside the range of a dysfunctional population or within the range of the functional population. Factors predicting a level of disability at discharge from treatment will not tell us if someone has changed to get to that final state, and predictors of change in disability will not tell us where someone is at the end of treatment. If these different outcome formats lead to different prognostic factors, then this would suggest that the consumer of the literature must decide not only what type of outcome to look for, but also which format of that outcome is most useful to them.

The purpose of this study was to determine prognostic factors affecting response in soft tissue disorders of the shoulder in patients receiving physical therapy. This study focuses on 2 concepts of clinical response-change in and level of disability after treatment--using the DASH outcome measure.

Method

Sample

One hundred and eighteen physical therapists were randomly selected from 848 College-registered physical therapists in Ontario who met the following criteria: they had more than 5 years of clinical experience, they had a practice in which shoulder conditions were 1 of the top 3 conditions treated, and they came from 1 of 3 geographic regions in the province. Each physical therapist was asked to collect data from 5 consecutive patients who were beginning physical therapy treatment.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria. All patients seen by the selected physical therapists for the treatment of soft tissue shoulder complaints were included in the study. Shoulder complaints were defined as any condition of pain or discomfort, including instances where there had been surgical treatment of the soft tissue shoulder disorder (eg, rotator cuff repair).

Exclusion criteria. Patients were excluded from the study if they: (1) had fractures or dislocations associated with soft tissue pain, (2) received physical therapy for only one visit (eg, referred for equipment or single education session), or (3) were unable to read and write English and thus could not complete the questionnaire package independently.

Each participating therapist maintained a log to record the required information for all consecutive patients with soft tissue shoulder disorders seen during the 4-month recruitment period. This log was designed for the following reasons: (1) to ensure that consecutive patients were chosen for the study, (2) to document reasons for the exclusion of patients, and (3) to describe basic demographic characteristics (age, sex, and duration of symptoms) of all patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, including those who declined to participate. Signed consent was obtained by the treating physical therapist at the clinic. The rights of the patients were protected.

Data Collection

Training related to the study protocol (eg, recruitment process, inclusion and exclusion criteria) and the data collection process (eg, review of the questionnaires and recruitment logs) was provided to all physical therapists participating in the study. The training was provided in small group sessions led by the investigators, and the physical therapists could ask specific questions about the study material. For each patient eligible for the study, the therapist completed a questionnaire at initial assessment ("baseline") and at discharge. For study purposes, we defined discharge as the date when the discharge questionnaire was completed; this occurred either when the patient was discharged from physical therapy treatment or after a 12-week period of treatment (for the purposes of the study), whichever happened first. The 12-week window was selected because it is a typical time for the healing of a soft tissue injury (42-44) and was judged by the investigators and study team as a reasonable point at which many therapists would finish treatment.

Dependent variables. Patient response to therapy was assessed over a period of 12 weeks or less, using the DASH to measure disability at baseline and again at discharge from physical therapy. The DASH is a 30-item self-completed questionnaire designed to measure physical function (at the level of disability as defined by Verbrugge and Jette (45)) and symptoms in people with any or multiple disorders of the upper limb. (35,36,46) Each item of the DASH has 5 response options. Summative scores range from 0 (no disability/symptoms) to 100 (greater disability/symptoms). A high DASH score indicates more disability. Change in DASH was calculated by subtracting the baseline DASH score from the discharge (or 12-week) DASH score. Therefore, a negative value for change in DASH indicates improvement. Previous studies have demonstrated that the DASH has strong construct validity, (38) reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability: intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.96), (38,47) and responsiveness (SRMs [standardized response means] in patients with shoulder conditions=0.81-1.44). (38.39)

Final state and change in state were used to define clinical response. Therefore, the dependent outcome measure used for the 2 regression models were: (1) DASH score at discharge and (2) change in DASH score between baseline and discharge.

Candidate prognostic variables. Information was collected from both the patient and the physical therapist on a wide range of descriptive and prognostic variables. The content of the questionnaires included variables chosen based on review of the literature on prognosis in musculoskeletal disorders, (21,31) key clinical findings identified through a survey of 12 physical therapist specialists (includes experienced clinicians, academics, and researchers from Ontario), and additional prognostic information that the research team was interested in exploring. Two investigators (CAK, DEB) selected or created prognostic variables, based on availability of supporting evidence in the musculoskeletal literature. Three variables on clinical findings at baseline (muscle wasting, restriction of ROM, and muscle strength) were chosen based on clinical rationale. In addition, we were interested in exploring variables related to both patient expectations and therapist predictions for recovery.

Wherever possible, standardized instruments with demonstrated measurement properties were selected for each variable. The variables were organized by domains: demographic, disorder-related and disability measures, medication use, clinical findings, and expectations for recovery. Table 1 contains a detailed description of all candidate prognostic variables considered for the regression models. In the model for change in DASH, we decided not to include the baseline DASH score as a candidate variable because this measure is a component of the dependent outcome.

Demographics. Patients provided demographic information on age, sex, and comorbidities. The patients' ages were grouped by decade, because this was thought to be a more clinically meaningful comparison in a prediction model than grouping by year. A validated measure of comorbidity, the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ), (48) was used to obtain information from patients on potential confounding health conditions that might limit their response to physical therapy treatment. The SCQ has demonstrated strong test-retest reliability (ICC=.94) and validity. (48) Patients were asked if they had one or more medical conditions (from a list of 15 diagnoses). If they gave a positive response, they were asked whether the condition limited their activity. Two variables, the total count of problems (by diagnosis) and the count of problems that limit activity, were used in the prognostic model.

Disorder-related. Disorder-related information was provided by the patients. Recurrence of the shoulder problem was dichotomized to those patients who had a recurrent episode within the past 6 months and those who had a recurrent episode more than 6 months ago or who had not experienced a previous episode. We felt that the group with a recurrent episode within the past 6 months identified a worse condition because they were potentially dealing with a recurrence of the same problem. Patients described the nature of onset of their shoulder problem as either gradual or sudden. Duration of the current problem was partitioned into 3 phases of soft tissue recovery: less than 4 weeks, 4 to 12 weeks, longer than 12 weeks. Previous literature has consistently demonstrated that these phases represent transitional states in the recovery of soft tissue injuries from acute to subacute to chronic phases respectively. (42-44) The Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) was used to assess each patient's pain intensity at baseline. The NPRS asks the patient to circle a number from 10 ("no pain") to 100 ("pain as bad as can be") that best describes their average pain level over the past week. The NPRS has been shown to correlate with the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, (49) has good same-day test-retest reliability, (50) and is considered easier for some patients to complete than the VAN. (49-51) Operative (or surgical) conditions were defined as patients who had shoulder surgery within the past 6 months. We felt that those having surgery in the previous 6 months identified a unique group compared with either a nonsurgical group or those who had surgery more than 6 months previously.

Disability measures. Measures of disability collected at baseline were: whether patients continued to work, whether a workers' compensation claim had been filed, and a patient's global rating of his or her shoulder problem. In the work domain, current working status that was affected by the shoulder condition and workers' compensation claims for the current shoulder problem were of particular interest. In addition, the acute version of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess the overall health of each client. (52) We chose to use 2 aggregate summary scores, the Physical Component Score (PCS) and the Mental Component Score (MCS).

Medication use. Patients reported current medication use (over-the-counter [OTC] and prescription) at baseline. We used a 5-point ordinal scale, ranging from no days to all days.

Clinical findings. Physical therapists completed standardized forms of their clinical assessment. Three variables on clinical findings at baseline (muscle wasting, restriction of ROM, and muscle strength) were chosen based on the clinical rationale that these variables were the most relevant clinical measures in soft tissue disorders of the shoulder. Therapists recorded mild, moderate, or severe findings with respect to broad categories of: muscle wasting (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, deltoid), decreased muscle strength (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, serratus anterior, etc), and decreased active and passive ROM. We decided to collapse each of these variables (muscle wasting, muscle strength, and ROM) into "some degree" (mild, moderate, severe) versus "no" because of the potential for less reliability between observers (81 participating therapists) for these clinical findings.

Expectation for recovery. We measured patients' and therapists' expectations for recovery using questions adapted from previous literature. (53-55) At initial assessment, patients also were asked to predict how long it would take them to recover and how long it would take them to return to usual activities. Similarly, at initial assessment, therapists were asked to predict the patient's functional activity level (with or without restrictions) at discharge and the time frame for recovery. Given the important role that recovery expectations have previously demonstrated in the literature, (54,55) we were interested in exploring these variables. For patient and therapist prediction for time to return to usual activity, a cut point of 4 weeks was chosen as a clinically relevant threshold for those who will get better quickly (acute) versus those who will take longer to recover (subacute or chronic). This threshold was based on work by Frank et al, (42) who contend that understanding what predicts quick versus longer-term course is likely to be most helpful.

Data Management and Analysis

Therapists returned completed questionnaire packages (including both physical therapist and patient questionnaires) by courier to the study center. All data were entered into Access * databases with customized data entry screens designed to minimize data entry errors. Data were transferred into SAS version 6.08. ([dagger])

The purpose of the analysis was to build a prognostic model that could be used to determine the strength of each candidate variable in terms of its ability to predict clinical response (either DASH at discharge or change in DASH) on its own and when controlling for other variables. A strategy for investigating prognostic factors and developing prognostic models was determined a priori using approaches suggested in the literature. (56,57) Multiple linear regression techniques were used, based on approaches reported in the literature) (58)

Model building. The analysis began with descriptive statistics on each outcome and candidate prognostic factor. We paid attention to the distribution of responses and suitability for a regression analysis. (58) Categories were collapsed if distributions were too low in any one category.

A statistical strategy for variable selection was performed. Univariate models were built to obtain beta coefficients and a P value for each variable. Using a more conservative approach suggested by Hosmer and Lemeshow, (56) variables that were associated with the outcome at a level of P<.25 progressed to the next phase of modeling. Collinearity among the remaining independent variables were assessed and if the correlation (Pearson for continuous variables or polychoric for dichotomous or ordinal variables) was greater than .75, then only one of the predictor variables was selected. (58) Cramer's V (a [chi square]-based measure) was used to assess the association between the nominal variables. The independent variable selected was the one with the highest correlation with the dependent variable or, in the case of similar associations, the one with the greatest clinical sensibility as a prognostic factor.

Following this selection process, the remaining variables (those significant at P<.25 and not collinear) were considered for the final regression model. These variables were entered into the model and, using backward manual elimination methods, the variable with the least significant P value was removed from the model. This process was repeated until all variables remaining in the final model had a beta coefficient with a P value less than .05. The same process of model building was repeated for each of the 2 outcome variables (DASH at discharge and change in DASH).

Regression diagnostics. The distribution of each of the dependent outcome variables, DASH at discharge and change in DASH, was examined for normality. Goodness-of-fit indexes were assessed for each of the multiple regression models:

(1) The [R.sup.2] multiple correlation coefficient is a measure of the strength of the linear relationship between the predictors and the outcome. It indicates the amount of variability that the predictors are able to explain in the outcome. (58)

(2) Assumption of homoscedasticity was assessed. Homoscedasticity is the assumption that the variance of the outcome variable is constant for any fixed combination of the independent variables. (58) Homoscedasticity of the multiple linear regression models was tested by creating the following graphs: (a) model residuals plotted for each of the independent variables and (b) model residuals plotted for each of the predicted values of dependent outcomes.

Results

Eighty-one of the 118 randomly selected therapists participated in the data collection. These therapists worked in private practices (60%), general hospital settings (16%), province-funded private practices (14%), and other settings (10%). Of the 118 randomly selected physical therapists, 90 agreed to participate in the project. Twenty-eight physical therapists were not able to participate for the following reasons: no longer worked in clinical setting (21.4%), not presently working (17.9%), no longer treating patients with soft tissue injuries (7.1%), planned to retire during the study period (7.1%), moved out of Ontario (3.6%), and no reason was provided (39.3%). Nine physical therapists did not send in any patient cases for the following reasons: patients refused or were not English speaking (n=l), the therapist treated an elderly population and worked part-time (n=1), the ethics review board at the hospital did not approve participation in our study (n=2), the therapist was on vacation during accrual period (n=1), the therapist provided client cases after the closing date (n=2), and no reason was provided (n=2).

Study logs revealed that 534 patients met the inclusion criteria, but 154 were subsequently excluded based on a priori exclusion criteria. Therapists excluded an additional 23 patients based on their clinical judgment that the patient could not provide valid data. Following data collection, 5 patients were excluded from the database because of ineligibility. Nine cases were included in the study but were not documented in the tracking logs. Therefore, the final study sample was 361 clients.

We compared demographic variables describing participants and those considered nonparticipants (exclusion by eligibility criteria or the patient refused to participate) and did not find any statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. There were no sex and age differences between the participants group and nonparticipants group (P [greater than or equal to] .4). Although nonparticipants had their symptoms for a longer time before starting therapy than participants (381 versus 229 days), the difference was marginally significant (unpaired t test, P=.07).

The DASH outcome measures--at baseline, at discharge (to a maximum of 12 weeks), and change in DASH ([DASH/sub.discharge]-[DASH.sub.baseline])--are presented in Table 2. Figure 1 illustrates a fairly normal distribution of DASH scores at baseline (starting physical therapy) with a mean DASH score of 40.1/100. At discharge, the distribution had shifted toward less disability, showing overall improvement with a mean of 17.9/100 (Fig. 2). The distribution of change in DASH scores (mean=-22.2/100) is illustrated in Figure 3.

[FIGURES 1-3 OMITTED]

Baseline characteristics for the candidate prognostic factors selected are shown in Table 1. Among the 361 patients, the mean age was 49.9 years. One hundred and ninety-four (53.7%) were female. Almost half of the sample had their symptoms for more than 12 weeks. Fifty-one patients (14.1%) reported that this was a recurrent episode within the last 6 months. The nature of onset was sudden in 178 patients (49.3%). Twentynine clients (8.0%) had received surgical treatment for their shoulder problem within the previous 6 months. The mean pain intensity at baseline was 57.7 (on scale of 10 to 100, 10=no pain). Forty-three patients (11.9%) were not working because of their shoulder problem, and 30 (8.3%) had made a workers' compensation claim for their current shoulder problem. Of those 43 patients who were not working because of their shoulder problem, 13 (30%) had filed a workers' compensation claim for their current shoulder problem. On clinical assessment at baseline, 223 patients (61.8%) showed signs of muscle wasting, 295 (81.7%) were restricted in active or passive ROM, and 296 (82.0%) showed decreased muscle strength.

Normality

The distribution of each of the dependent outcome variables (DASH at discharge and change in DASH) were examined for normality. DASH at discharge was right (positively) skewed (Fig. 2). Therefore, we chose to transform DASH at discharge to the dependent outcome log (1 + DASH at discharge), which displayed a fairly normal distribution (Fig. 4). Change in DASH was only slightly left (negatively) skewed, with a good distribution; therefore, we felt it was acceptable not to transform this outcome and rely on goodness-of-fit and regression diagnostics to identify any issues.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Factors Associated With log (1 + DASH at Discharge) and Change in DASH

Univariate models. Tables 3 and 4 present the results of the univariate regression analyses for the variables selected for the 2 models. Collinearity was not found between the univariate predictor variables.

Final regression models. Tables 5 and 6 present the results of the final regression models, including unstandardized beta coefficients, standard errors, 95% confidence intervals (CI), standardized beta coefficients, and partial [R.sup.2]. The unstandardized beta coefficients are useful for constructing the regression equation and also can be interpreted directly because the amount of change in the dependent outcome variable results from a change of one unit in the predictor variable. (59,60) The unstandardized coefficients will vary in magnitude depending on the scaling of the variable (yes/no versus continuous). They are key in translating the observable scores into a practical predictive model. The standardized beta coefficient converts all variables in the regression equation to standard scores so that the magnitude of the standardized beta coefficients can be directly compared. (59,60) The standardized coefficients can be used to consider the relative strength of the predictor variables. The magnitude of the partial [R.sup.2] indicates the amount of variance in y (dependent outcome) that the variable x is able to explain in addition to that already accounted for by the other predictors of y. (58)

The final model for log (1 + DASH score at discharge) indicates that a higher DASH score at baseline, therapist prediction of restricted activities at discharge, having a workers' compensation claim for a current shoulder problem, greater age, and being female were associated with higher DASH scores (or greater disability) at discharge (Tab. 7). Table 5 provides the parameter estimates and standard errors of these variables. The final model explained 35.6% of the variability in the outcome. The partial [R.sup.2] for each of the variables in the final model for log (1 + DASH at discharge) is presented in Table 5. Using the partial [R.sup.2], this model suggested that DASH score at baseline was the strongest predictor, explaining 20% of the total variation associated by the final model log (1 + DASH discharge). The DASH score at baseline was a stronger predictor than workers' compensation claim (by 2.5-fold), therapist prediction of restricted activities at discharge (5-fold), age (by 7-fold), and sex (by 20-fold).

A different set of predictors was found for change in DASH score (Tab. 7). This model indicates that shoulder surgery in the previous 6 months, higher pain intensity at baseline, shorter duration of symptoms, younger age, and worse physical health (SF-36) at baseline were associated with more improvement, in terms of change in DASH score. Table 6 displays the parameter estimates and standard errors of these variables. The final model explained 22.5% of the variability in the outcome. The partial [R.sup.2] for each of the variables in the final model for change in DASH is presented in Table 6. Using the partial [R.sup.2], this model suggested that pain intensity and surgery were the strongest predictors, explaining 7% to 8% of the total variation. Pain intensity and surgery were stronger than duration of the current problem (by ~2-fold), age (by 4-fold), and PCS (by 8-fold).

Regression diagnostics. The residuals of the models were randomly distributed across the continuous independent predictors. One exception to this was in the log (1 + DASH at discharge) model for the predictor variable "therapist prediction for return to usual activity," where the therapist predicted that only 4 patients would "not return to usual activity." We felt these were potentially patients of influence and ran further regression diagnostics. The regression diagnostic, Cook's distance (di), was assessed in these 4 individuals. Cook's distance measures the influence of an observation and how much the regression coefficients are changed by deleting the particular observation in question. (58) Kleinbaum et al (58) suggest that an observation with a di >1 may deserve closer scrutiny, and if the model is correct, then the expected di is <1. In these 4 individuals, Cook's di were all less than l, suggesting these were not patients of influence. (58) In addition, the residuals of the models were generally equally distributed across each category for each of the categorical independent predictors. The model residuals for the predicted value of log (1 + DASH at discharge) and change in DASH were randomly distributed, which therefore suggested that all basic assumptions were held and that there were no problems with heteroscedasticity of the variance.

Discussion

According to Altman and Lyman, (61) the method used in this study to model prognosis would be classified as a phase II (exploratory) study. These types of studies focus on a particular set of prognostic factors and attempt to determine which factors have the highest prognostic value. As such, the analyses reported here identified several predictive factors that were associated with those patients who might do better, or not as well, during the course of physical therapy. Given that very few of the clients in the study got worse, these models may predict the degree of improvement. Confidence in our findings will be strengthened when the results are replicated in a new study. (32)

Although there was some overlap between the 2 models for the disability outcome, the different formats of outcome led to different prognostic factors. This would suggest that the consumer of the literature must decide not only what type of outcome to look for, but also which format of that outcome is most useful to them. Factors predicting a level of disability at discharge from treatment will not tell us if someone has changed to get to that final state and predictors of change in disability will not tell us where someone is at the end of treatment.

In both prediction models presented in this study, younger age (by decade) was associated with each of the outcomes (less disability at final state, more improvement in terms of change in DASH score). Strong evidence from shoulder prognostic studies of people seeking occupational medicine (9,10) have found that middle age (45-54 years) was associated with poorer outcome. Age was not identified as a significant factor in several other studies. (5,6,8,14-18,23-25,29)

Shorter duration of shoulder symptoms was associated with greater improvement in terms of change in DASH score. Several studies (5,8,11,14,15,17,28) have shown that this factor (shorter duration of shoulder symptoms) is important in predicting a more favorable outcome in terms of final status. However, many studies have not found the duration of shoulder symptoms to be significantly associated with various outcomes (including ROM (16,18,22,25); symptom improvement (23); patient satisfaction (25,27); disability (25); and aggregate score based on pain, motion, strength, and function (29)).

The current study found that a workers' compensation claim was associated with the outcome higher DASH scores (more disability) at discharge. These findings are heightened by the fact that only 8.3% of the total sample reported a workers' compensation claim related to their shoulder disorder; and despite this, the variable remained significant in this model. Similarly, other shoulder prognostic studies have found a workers' compensation claim (25) associated with dissatisfaction with their outcome or being on sick leave associated with a worse Neer shoulder score (an aggregate score including pain, function, ROM, and radiological findings) (7) or taking more sick leave. (11) Two other studies, one in a cohort of patients with rotator cuff tears receiving conservative care (27) and another in a cohort of workers following carpal tunnel release, (62) did not find an association between an insurance claim and the outcome studied. The evidence in the literature related to the impact of workers' compensation status in people with soft tissue shoulder disorders is limited. However, in the carpal tunnel syndrome literature, longer-term follow-up studies by Katz and colleagues (62,63) found that factors other than simply having a workers' compensation claim--such as longer duration of work absence or litigation issues--may be responsible for a delayed return to work that often has been assumed to be due to the claim itself. These more extensive studies involving workers and predictors of outcome do not exist in the shoulder literature and suggest a need for further study.

Physical therapist prediction for patient to return to activity was significant in the model for DASH at discharge. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time this factor has been explored in any of the shoulder prognostic studies reviewed. Further study to identify more specific factors considered by clinicians in making a prediction of a patient's degree of recovery would be helpful. Qualitative methods would likely be most helpful in addressing this question. Qualitative methods would help us identify the areas that we do not understand with our quantitative instruments. Furthermore, these methods are useful in this type of situation to get a rich understanding of a decision-making process.

Patients' expectation for recovery has been studied in an injured worker population (including back and upper-and lower-limb disorders) and found to be significantly associated with time receiving wage replacement benefits. (55) A systematic review of the evidence for a relationship between patients' recovery expectations and health outcomes found that positive expectations were associated with better health outcomes in 15 of 16 studies. (64) Despite this strong support in previous literature, 2 variables that were related to patients' expectation for recovery (prediction for recovery and estimate of time to return to usual activity) were included in our analysis but were not significant predictors in either of the 2 multivariable regression models. In particular, we used the same wording and categorization as Hogg-Johnson and Cole (55) for the variable client prediction for recovery. However, differences in their selection criteria (compensated occupational soft tissue injuries of back and upper and lower limb) and the dependent outcome assessed (duration on wage replacement benefits) may explain these differences.

In addition, only a modest correlation (polychoric correlation=0.36) was found between therapist and patient expectations for the variable "prediction for recovery" and the measure of association between the therapist and client "prediction for time to return to usual activity" were not significant (Cramer's V, P=.12). Therefore, these findings suggest that the therapist and patient expectations were not cancelling each other out or that clinicians and patients decide on expectations using different frameworks.

Better physical health (PCS) at baseline was a significant predictor in the model for change in DASH. Given that most of our cohort showed improvement in disability from baseline to discharge from physical therapy and indicated that they were better on other indicators of change that were not used in this analysis, (65) patients with better physical health had smaller change scores on the DASH and still considered that important. This also has been documented in other studies and interpreted as suggesting that change can still be meaningful, though smaller in magnitude, for those who begin at higher levels of baseline health compared with those who were sicker at baseline. (66-68)

In the current study, higher pain intensity at baseline was associated with more improvement in terms of change in DASH score. These findings are consistent with another study of patients presenting with acute shoulder pain in secondary care in which a multivariate analysis found that more severe pain at baseline was associated with greater improvement in pain. (17) Two studies found that those with higher baseline severity of symptoms were more likely to have long-standing, persistent shoulder symptoms. (6,8) However, 3 studies did not find an association between pain intensity and satisfaction with outcome (25,27) or with sick leave. (11)

Those patients who had undergone shoulder surgery in the past 6 months showed more improvement in terms of change in DASH score. This finding makes clinical sense because we would expect those who have had recent surgery to be starting therapy in a more painful and disabled state. In this case, there would be more room for improvement in the first 12 weeks. Many of the shoulder prognostic studies did not include this variable because they were studying either surgical or nonsurgical cohorts.

In the current study, female sex was associated with a higher DASH score at discharge from physical therapy. Wirth et al (30) had similar results in a cohort of patients with nonsurgical management of rotator cuff tears whereas males were associated with a better outcome reflected by a higher UCLA Shoulder Rating Scale score. In contrast, several studies did not find sex to be significantly associated with various outcomes (including persistent shoulder pain or complaints; shoulder pain; an aggregate score based on pain, function, ROM, strength, and patient satisfaction; ROM; and self-report measures of pain and disability). (6,8,10.14-17,19,24)

One interesting finding in this study was that the baseline clinical findings from the physical examination (restriction in ROM and muscle weakness) were significant at the univariate stage and fell out of the model at the multivariable stage. Modest correlations (range= 0.2-0.3) were found between these clinical findings and other independent variables such as client global rating of shoulder problem and baseline DASH score. A stronger correlation of 0.4 was found between muscle weakness and operative status. These findings suggest that these clinical data may be competing for predictive variance in the multivariate model. Overall, physical findings may be important in diagnostic classification, (69) but this study did not support their utility over patient self-report measures in predicting outcome. We recognize that measurement noise or lack of sensitivity of the clinical measures used in this study also may have been responsible for the absence of these findings. Therefore, a limitation of this study is the relative weakness of the clinical measures used. With these clinical measures the greatest source of error is between observers, so we chose more gross, but valid, measures that may be less precise. We chose to err on including any deficit as a positive finding rather than depending on interobserver differences between mild and moderate. Very few people were rated in the severe category. We made this decision as a group but we felt it was the best one, given the variety of therapists and the distribution of findings. In our review of more than 25 studies, only 11 studies (5,7,8,11,14,15,22,25,27,29,30) considered clinical findings as predictors and only 4 studies (5,11,29,30) found them to be significant predictors.

This study has several methodological strengths that distinguish it from previous studies in the literature. First, it includes a cohort of consecutive patients seeking physical therapy treatment for shoulder disorders. This cohort is most likely to represent the population of patients receiving physical therapy for shoulder problems and therefore more likely to give generalizable results. Cases were identified by physical therapists who were provided with an operational definition of cases, including exclusion criteria. These criteria were operationalized in a broad manner, again allowing for generalizable results. All clients entered the study at a common point (at the beginning of physical therapy treatment) and were followed until discharge (to a maximum of 12 weeks). These findings may not be generalizable to all persons with shoulder pain in Ontario, but rather those who seek treatment. Furthermore, this primary set of data focuses on physical therapist practice and patients rather than surgical or physician-based practices. This focus is indeed rare, because none of the 25 shoulder prognostic studies in our review were based solely on physical therapist practice.

Second, the data included a broad range of clinical variables: demographic, disorder-related and disability measures, medication use, clinical findings, and expectations for recovery. Wherever possible, standardized instruments with demonstrated measurement properties were selected for each variable. Variable reduction methods and model-building strategies suggested in the literature were used to explore the presence and strength of association between a limited number of variables collected in this study. (4,56,70,71)

In response to ongoing uncertainty, we did not include baseline DASH in the change in DASH model because the baseline DASH score was taken into consideration in the formulation of the dependent variable (change in DASH). One of the major issues of concern is the violation of the assumption of independence of outcome and predictors that underlies regression analysis. (58) Indeed, we found a Pearson correlation of -0.6 between baseline DASH and change in DASH. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that the magnitude of the change was dependent on the baseline level of disability. The direction of this change would be consistent with regression to the mean but could also reflect a ceiling effect at discharge or it could actually be a clinically relevant difference in response depending on the disability at baseline. Regression to the mean and ceiling (good health) effects at follow-up for those starting with less disability could be important limitations in the use of change scores as the format of the dependent outcome. Using discharge scores as the outcome, and controlling for baseline scores, is one alternative that theoretically removes the covariance due to baseline scores.

Third, in the current study, physical therapist and patient outcome assessments were done at treatment baseline and discharge (to a maximum of 12 weeks). This was considered a reasonable period of time for patients to have completed physical therapy. Useable follow-up data on the DASH outcome were available from 281 of 361 patients (77.8%) and 272 of 361 patients (75.3%) for DASH at discharge and change in DASH, respectively. One could criticize this study for limiting follow-up to the duration of physical therapy treatment (to a maximum of 12 weeks). Although this time frame captures a very important period in clinical recovery, it does not identify the clinical course and factors affecting response over a longer-term follow-up.

Fourth, the main outcome measure (DASH questionnaire) has demonstrated strong measurement properties in shoulder conditions. (34-39) This outcome measure focuses on the clinical outcomes that matter most to patients: disability and symptoms.

Finally, with respect to analysis, this study demonstrates appropriate statistical methods. An analytic plan was developed a priori to address the research questions. The statistical tests chosen were valid for the outcome considered: specifically, continuous outcomes of DASH score at discharge and change in DASH score using multiple linear regression methods. Because the purpose was to develop a predictive model, variables were chosen based on the musculoskeletal literature relevant to prognosis, univariate analysis, and then using backward manual elimination methods. Multivariable methods were employed, thereby allowing for adjustment. The final models for DASH at discharge and change in DASH explained 35.6% and 22.5%, respectively, of the variability in the outcomes. Our review of the shoulder prognostic literature did not identify comparable studies using multiple linear regression methods. Therefore, we reviewed the low back pain prognostic literature for comparable analyses. Although our [R.sup.2] values seem low, they are comparable to the existing low back prognostic literature, where Symonds et al (72) had 32.2% and Dionne et al (73) had 30% explained by their models. The highest [R.sup.2] that we found was 51% of the variability explained in a prognostic study of diskogenic low back pain where manual labor, physician diagnosis of disk lesion, and prescribed days off were the main variables. (74) As with nonspecific low back pain, however, we are dealing with a much less dramatic and definable condition in soft tissue shoulder disorders. It often is not possible to discern the soft tissue structure that is responsible for the patient's complaint and, therefore, we would expect a lower [R.sup.2] value.

We also ran models for 2 different forms of "disability," (ie, DASH at discharge and change in DASH). The results demonstrated 2 sets of predictors, that overlapped by only 1 variable: age (by decade). The other predictors differed between models. Occasionally this could be accounted for by chance but we believe that this is not a spurious finding. This could be validated by replication of the findings in a second sample. This highlights a new issue for reviews of prognosis. DASH at discharge is a concept that looks only at the final state of an individual, whether there was a lot of change to get there or not. Change in DASH focuses only on the amount of change and predictors are those sensitive to smaller versus larger amounts of change. They do not reveal where the person actually is at discharge. This means that when reviewing studies of prognosis it is no longer adequate to speak of predictors of "disability"; rather, one must also define how they conceptualized disability: the degree of change in disability or the final level of disability. The conceptualization will make a difference in the final set of predictors.

Furthermore, we do not know which outcome (the magnitude of the change or the final level of disability) is the most important to the patient. A qualitative study, which explored the concept of recovery in a group of people with upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders, would suggest that it could be the amount of change in disability, the final level of disability, or that an individual gets to a level where he or she can cope with the disability (either cognitively or behaviorally through adaptations). (75) Other work supports another view, a view where treatment should induce a change in state greater than measurement error, and the final state would be in a normal or functional range of scores. (41) These all suggest the need to consider how the outcome (disability) was used in a study of prognosis and its potential implications.

In our review of the shoulder prognostic literature, disability measures were often dichotomized, which adds yet another approach that could be taken and possibly lead to another set of predictors. Rather than being labeled "inconsistent findings" across studies of prognosis, our work would suggest that this variability in predictors could be the result of different formats of the outcome. Each approach to formatting the disability outcome has its own value, and the choice between models might best be made by selecting the one closest to the user's clinical question.

A potential limitation of this study is that we have restricted the description of the outcome to the final status measure or the change over time. This may mask important information about the heterogeneity in the clinical course and outcome for different subgroups. Therefore, we undertook another research project that combined information on initial and final state with information on speed of recovery, which may offer a more useful description of clinical recovery for the clinician and researcher. (76) Subsequently, this form of outcome may provide a more clinically relevant predictive model.

A further limitation of the study was that we did not include specific interventions because they would occupy a large amount of statistical power and our cohort design was not set up to evaluate treatment effectiveness. In addition, physical therapy intervention could not be controlled in this study, which involved 81 physical therapists. This cohort study aimed for more generalizable results--identifying factors at baseline that affect response in shoulder patients attending physical therapy. In the current physical therapist practice, there are a variety of interventions for soft tissue disorders of the shoulder; and rather than "disregarding" this, we have allowed physical therapy interventions to vary and considered only other treatments (such as prescription and nonprescription medications). However, further research studies could examine the interaction between the physical therapy interventions and examination findings to produce a more optimal outcome.

Conclusion

This analysis identified 5 predictive factors that were associated with DASH at discharge or the amount of change in DASH. These results could help to discern those patients who might do better, or not as well, during the course of physical therapy. Given that very few of the patients in the study got worse, these models actually predict degree of improvement. The results also suggest that prognostic factors for response in soft tissue disorders of the shoulder differ depending on the format of the outcome measure considered. Both DASH at discharge score and change in DASH score could be considered indicators of response. This may, in turn, imply that different factors predict different concepts of response. Age (by decade) was the only variable that remained significant in both regression models.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto.

This article was submitted July 19, 2005, and was accepted January 9, 2006.

References

(1) Allander E. Prevalence, incidence, and remission rates of some common rheumatic diseases or syndromes. Scand J Rheumatol. 1974;3: 145-153.

(2) LuimeJJ, Koes BW, Hendriksen IJ, et al. Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004;33:73-81.

(3) Statistical Supplement to the 2002 Annual Report. Table 9: Lost time claims by part of body affected (1996 to 2002). Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Web site. Available at: http://www.wsib.ca/wsib/ wsibsite.nsf/Public/AnnualReports. Accessed January 19, 2006.

(4) Polanyi MF, Cole DC, Beaton DE, et al. Upper limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders among newspaper employees: cross-sectional survey results. Am J Ind Med. 1997;32:620-628.

(5) Croft P, Pope D, Silman A; Primary Care Rheumatology Society Shoulder Study Group. The clinical course of shoulder pain: prospective cohort study in primary care. BMJ. 1996;313:601-602.

(6) van der Windt DA, Koes BW, Boeke AJ, et al. Shoulder disorders in general practice: prognostic indicators of outcome. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46:519-523.

(7) Brox JI, Brevik JI. Prognostic factors in patients with rotator tendinosis (stage II impingement syndrome) of the shoulder. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1996;14:100-105.

(8) Macfarlane GJ, Hunt IM, Silman AJ. Predictors of chronic shoulder pain: a population based prospective study. J Rheumatol. 1998;25: 1612-1615.

(9) Cassou B, Derriennic F, Monfort C, et al. Chronic neck and shoulder pain, age, and working conditions: longitudinal results from a large random sample in France. Occup Environ Med. 2002;59:537-544.

(10) Miranda H, Viikari-Juntura E, Martikainen R, et al. A prospective study of work related factors and physical exercise as predictors of shoulder pain. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58:528-534.

(11) Viikari-Juntura E, Takala E, Riihimaki H, et al. Predictive validity of symptoms and signs in the neck and shoulders. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:800-808.

(12) Kaergaard A, Andersen JH. Musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and shoulders in female sewing machine operators: prevalence, incidence, and prognosis. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57:528-534.

(13) Chard MD, Sattelle LM, Hazleman BL. The long-term outcome of rotator cuff tendinitis: a review study. Br J Rheumatol. 1988;27:385-389.

(14) Morrison DS, Frogameni AD, Woodworth P. Non-operative treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:732-737.

(15) Bartolozzi A, Andreychik D, Ahmad S. Determinants of outcome in the treatment of rotator cuff disease. Clin Orthop. 1994;308:90-97.

(16) Binder AI, Bulgen DY, Hazleman BL, Roberts S. Frozen shoulder: a long-term prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis. 1984;43:361-364.

(17) Solomon DH, Bates DW, Schaffer JL, et al. Referrals for musculoskeletal disorders: patterns, predictors, and outcomes. J Rheumatol. 2001 ;28:2090-2095.

(18) Shaffer B, Tibone JE, Kerlan RK. Frozen shoulder: a long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:738-746.

(19) Kuroda S, Sumiyoshi T, Moriishi J, et al. The natural course of atraumatic shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10:100-104.

(20) Mulcahy KA, Baxter AD, Oni OO, Finlay D. The value of shoulder distension arthrography with intra-articular injection of steroid and local anaesthetic: a follow-up study. Br J Radiol. 1994;67: 263-266.

(21) Kuijpers T, van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM. Systematic review of prognostic cohort studies on shoulder disorders. Pain. 2004;109:420-431.

(22) Bulgen DY, Binder AI, Hazleman BL, et al. Frozen shoulder: prospective clinical study with an evaluation of three treatment regimens. Ann Rheum Dis. 1984;43:353-360.

(23) Fearnley ME, Vadasz I. Factors influencing the response of lesions of the rotator cuff of the shoulder to local steroid injection. Ann Phys Med. 1969;10:53-63.

(24) Goldberg BA, Nowinski RJ, Matsen FA III. Outcome of nonoperative management of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;382:99-107.

(25) Griggs SM, Ahn A, Green A. Idiopathic adhesive capsulitis: a prospective functional outcome study of nonoperative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1398-1407.

(26) Hardy DC, Vogler JB III, White RH. The shoulder impingement syndrome: prevalence of radiographic findings and correlation with response to therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;147:557-561.

(27) Hawkins RH, Dunlop R. Nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;321:178-188.

(28) Hazleman BL. The painful stiff shoulder. Rheumatol Phys Med. 1972;11:413-427.

(29) Itoi E, Tabata S. Conservative treatment of rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;275:165-173.

(30) Wirth MA, Basamania C, Rockwood CA Jr. Nonoperative management of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. Orthop Clin North Am. 1997;28:59-67.

(31) Kennedy CA. Prognosis in Soft Tissue Disorders of the Shoulder [thesis]. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University; 2002.

(32) Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA. 1997;277:488-494.

(33) Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: introduction. Spine. 2000;25:3097-3099.

(34) Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, et al. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:335-341.

(35) Solway S, Beaton DE, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH Outcome Measure: User's Manual. 2nd ed. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute for Work and Health; 2002.

(36) Marx RG, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson S, Wright JG. Clinimetric and psychometric strategies for development of a health measurement scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:105-111.

(37) Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C; the Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:618-631.

(38) Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, et al. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14:128-146.

(39) Beaton DE, Davis AM, Hudak P, McConnell S. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure: what do we know about it now? British Journal of Hand Therapy. 2001 ;6:109-118.

(40) Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12-19.

(41) Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, McGlinchey JB. Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999; 67:300-307.

(42) Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, et al. Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain: new evidence gives new hope--if we can just get all the players onside. CMAJ. 1998;158:1625-1631.

(43) Frank JW, Kerr MS, Brooker AS, et al. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain, part I: what do we know about primary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention before disability begins. Spine. 1996;21:2908-2917.

(44) Frank JW, Brooker AS, DeMaio S, et al. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain, part If: what do we know about secondary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention after disability begins. Spine. 1996;21:2918-2929.

(45) Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1-14.

(46) Davis AM, Beaton DE, Hudak P, et al. Measuring disability of the upper extremity: a rationale supporting the use of a regional outcome measure. J Hand Ther. 1999; 12:269-274.

(47) Turchin DC, Beaton DE, Richards RR. Validity of observer-based aggregate scoring systems as descriptors of elbow pain, function, and disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:154-162.

(48) Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, etal. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49:156-163.

(49) Ferraz MB, Quaresma MR, Aquino LR, et al. Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990; 17:1022-1024.

(50) Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, et al. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37:378-381.

(51) Herr KA, Mobily PR. Comparison of selected pain assessment tools for use with the elderly. Appl Nurs Res. 1993;6:39-46.

(52) Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc; 2000.

(53) Philips HC, Grant L. Acute back pain: a psychological analysis. Behav Res Ther. 1991;29:429-434.

(54) Cole DC, Mondloch MV, Hogg-Johnson S; Early Claimant Cohort Prognostic Modelling Group. Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes--a prospective study. CMAJ. 2002; 166:749-754.

(55) Hogg-Johnson S, Cole DC. Early prognostic factors for duration on temporary total benefits in the first year among workers with compensated occupational soft tissue injuries. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60: 244-253.

(56) Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2000.

(57) Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Matchar DB, Reichert TA. Regression models for prognostic prediction: advantages, problems, and suggested solutions. Cancer Treat Rep. 1985;69:1071-1077.

(58) Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE, Nizam A. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, Calif: Duxbury Press; 1998.

(59) Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994.

(60) Feinstein AR. Multivariable Analysis. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1996.

(61) Altman DG, Lyman GH. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52:289-303.

(62) Katz JN, Lew RA, Bessette L, et al. Prevalence and predictors of long term work disability due to carpal tunnel syndrome. Am J Ind Med. 1998;33:543-550.

(63) Katz JN, Keller RB, Fossel AH, et al. Predictors of return to work following carpal tunnel release. Am J Ind Med. 1997;31:85-91.

(64) Mondloch MV, Cole DC, Frank JW. Does how you do depend on how you think you'll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients' recovery expectations and health outcomes. CMAJ. 2001;165:174-179.

(65) Beaton DE, Van Eerd D, Govinda Raj A, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of various approaches to determining a threshold for responder analysis [abstract]. Poster presentation at 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; October 21-24, 2005; San Francisco, Calif. Available at: http://smdm.confex.com/ smdm/2005ca/techprogram/P2370.htm. Accessed February 9, 2006.

(66) Redelmeier DA, Lorig K. Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements: an illustration in rheumatology. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:1337-1342.

(67) Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998;78: 1197-1207.

(68) Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, et al. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:711-717.

(69) Winters JC, Groenier KH, Sobel JS, et al. Classification of shoulder complaints in general practice by means cluster analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1369-1374.

(70) Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatchewan population. Spine. 2000; 25:1109-1117.

(71) Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L. The treatment of neck and low back pain: who seeks care? who goes where? Med Care (Lond). 2001;39: 956 -967.

(72) Symonds TL, Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Main CJ. Do attitudes and beliefs influence work loss due to low back trouble? Occup Meal. 1996;46:25-32.

(73) Dionne CE, Koepsell TD, Von Korff M, et al. Predicting long-term functional limitations among back pain patients in primary care settings. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:31-43.

(74) Lanier DC, Stockton P. Clinical predictors of outcome of acute episodes of low back pain. J Fam Pract. 1988;27:483-489.

(75) Beaton DE, Tarasuk V, Katz JN, et al. "Are you better?" A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45:270-279.

(76) Kennedy CA, Haines T, Beaton DE. Predictive factors associated with response patterns during physiotherapy for soft tissue disorders were identified. J Clin Epidemiol. In press.

* Microsoft Corp, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399.

([dagger]) SAS Institute Inc, 100 SAS Campus Dr, Cary, NC 27513-2414.

CA Kennedy, BScPT, MSc, is Research Associate, Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Research Associate, Martin Family Arthritis Care and Research Centre, Mobility Program Clinical Research Unit, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto; and Clinical Lecturer, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto.

M Manno, MSc, is Biostatistician, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto; Analyst, Institute for Work and Health; and Lecturer, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto.

S Hogg-Johnson, PhD, is Senior Biostatistician, Institute for Work and Health, and Assistant Professor, Graduate Department of Community Health, University of Toronto.

T Haines, MD, DOHS, is Associate Professor, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Program in Occupational Health and Environmental Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

L Hurley is Project Coordinator, SCRIPT Project, Sponsored by The University Health Network, Toronto. At the time of the study, she was Manager, Quality Management Program, College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, Toronto.

D McKenzie is Director of Clinical Services, Work Able Centres Inc, Toronto. At the time of the study, she was Research Coordinator, Institute for Work and Health.

DE Beaton, BScOT, PhD, is Scientist, Institute for Work and Health; Scientist and Director, Mobility Program Clinical Research Unit, Martin Family Arthritis Care and Research Centre; Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy, Graduate Departments of Rehabilitation Science and Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto. Address all correspondence to Dr Beaton at Institute for Work and Health, 481 University Ave, Ste 800, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2E9 ([e-mail]).

Dr Hogg-Johnson, Dr Haines, Ms McKenzie, and Dr Beaton provided concept/idea/research design. Ms Kennedy, Dr Haines, and Dr Beaton provided writing. Ms Kennedy, Ms Hurley, Ms McKenzie, and Dr Beaton provided data collection and project management. Ms Kennedy, Mr Manno, Dr Hogg-Johnson, Dr Haines, and Dr Beaton provided data analysis. Ms Hurley and Dr Beaton provided fund procurement, facilities/equipment, and institutional liaisons. Ms Hurley provided subjects. Ms McKenzie provided clerical/secretarial support. Dr Hogg-Johnson, Dr Haines, and Ms McKenzie provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).

Table 1.
Baseline Characteristics of the Study Sample (n = 361), Descriptive
Statistics on Demographics, and Variables Considered in the
Analysis of Prognosis (a)

Variable                                     No. (%)      Mean (SD)

Demographic
Age (y) (b)                                               49.9 (14.9)

Age by decade
  10-19                                        5 (1.4)
  20-29                                       34 (9.4)
  30-39                                       51 (14.1)
  40-49                                       89 (24.7)
  50-59                                       77 (21.3)
  60-69                                       65 (18.0)
  70-79                                       33 (9.1)
  80-89                                        5 (1.4)
  Missing                                      2 (0.6)

Sex (b)
  Male                                       161 (44.6)
  Female                                     194 (53.7)
  Missing                                      6 (1.7)

Comorbidities
Total count of problems
    (by diagnosis) (b)                                     1.5 (1.4)

  0                                           81 (22.4)
  1                                          127 (35.2)
  2                                           82 (22.7)
  3                                           37 (10.3)
  4                                           19 (5.3)
  5                                            9 (2.5)
  6                                            4 (1.1)
  7                                            1 (0.3)
  Missing                                      1 (0.3)

Total count in which the problem
    limits activity (b)                                    0.6 (0.9)

  0                                          218 (60.4)
  1                                           92 (25.5)
  2                                           37 (10.2)
  3                                            7 (1.9)
  4                                            4 (1.1)
  5                                            1 (0.3)
  6                                            0 (0)
  7                                            1 (0.3)
  Missing                                      1 (0.3)

Disorder-related

Recurrence
  Recurrent problem (within
    last 6 mo) (b)                            51 (14.1)
  Not recurrent problem (recurrence
    >6 mo or no recurrence)                  287 (79.5)
  Missing                                     23 (6.4)

Nature of onset (b)
  Sudden                                     178 (49.3)
  Gradual                                    175 (48.5)
  Missing                                      8 (2.2)

Duration of current
    problem/discomfort (b)
  <4 wk                                       87 (24.1)
  4-12 wk                                     89 (24.7)
  >12 wk                                     175 (48.5)
  Missing                                     10 (2.8)

Pain intensity/severity
    (past week) (b)                                       57.7 (22.0)
  10 (no pain)                                 5 (1.4)
  20                                          21 (5.8)
  30                                          43 (11.9)
  40                                          43 (11.9)
  50                                          50 (13.9)
  60                                          38 (10.5)
  70                                          63 (17.5)
  80                                          62 (17.2)
  90                                          22 (6.1)
  100 (pain as bad as can be)                 10 (2.8)
  Missing                                      4 (1.1)

No. of treatment sessions                                 14.8 (8.7)
Duration of treatment (days)                              64.9 (25.6)
Surgery or no surgery
  Surgical (operation within
    past 6 mo) (b)                            29 (8.0)
  Nonsurgical (no operation or
    operation >6 mo)                         320 (88.6)
  Missing                                     12 (3.3)

Disability measure

Working status (b)
  Able to work or reason for not
    working unrelated to shoulder
    problem                                  309 (85.6)
  Reason for not working related to
    shoulder problem                          43 (11.9)
  Missing                                      9 (2.5)

Workers' compensation claim (b)
  Claim for current shoulder problem          30 (8.3)
  No claim for current shoulder problem      323 (89.5)
  Missing                                      8 (2.2)

Patient global rating of shoulder
    injury/problem (b)                                     3.3 (0.8)
  1 (very mild)                                5 (1.4)
  2 (mild)                                    40 (11.1)
  3 (moderate)                               173 (47.9)
  4 (severe or serious)                      124 (34.3)
  5 (very severe or serious)                  16 (4.4)
  Missing                                      3 (0.8)

DASH score (b)                               348          40.1 (19.6)
  Missing                                     13

Physical Component Score (SF-36) (b)         354          39.6 (9.0)
  Missing                                      7
Mental Component Score (SF-36) (b)           354          50.4 (11.3)
  Missing                                      7

Medication use

Over-the-counter (OTC) medication use (b)
  No days                                    137 (38.0)
  Few days                                    78 (21.6)
  Some days                                   51 (14.1)
  Most days                                   46 (12.7)
  All days                                    44 (12.2)
  Missing                                      5 (1.4)

Prescription medication use (b)
  No days                                    179 (49.6)
  Few days                                    38 (10.5)
  Some days                                   37 (10.2)
  Most days                                   36 (10.0)
  All days                                    67 (18.6)
  Missing                                      4 (1.1)

Clinical findings
Muscle wasting (d)
  Some degree of wasting (mild,
    moderate, severe)                        223 (61.8)
  No wasting                                 107 (29.6)
  Other (not tested, unable to test)           1 (0.3)
  Missing                                     30 (8.3)

Restriction in ROM (active or passive) (d)
  Some degree of limitation of ROM
    (mild, moderate, severe)                 295 (81.7)
  No limitation of ROM                        44 (12.2)
  Other (not tested, unable to test)           6 (1.7)
  Missing                                     16 (4.4)

Muscle strength (d)
  Some degree of decreased strength
    (mild, moderate, severe)                 296 (82.0)
  Normal                                      18 (5.0)
  Other (not tested, unable to test)          21 (5.8)
  Missing                                     26 (7.2)

Expectation for recovery

Patient prediction for recovery (b)
  Get better soon or already better          120 (33.2)
  Get better slow                            197 (54.6)
  Don't know                                  32 (8.9)
  Stay same or get worse                       6 (1.7)
  Missing                                      6 (1.7)

Patient estimate of time to return to
    usual activity (d)
  <4 wk                                       63 (17.5)
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk            176 (48.8)
  Don't know                                 108 (29.9)
  Missing                                     14 (3.9)

Therapist prediction for recovery (d)
  Return to usual activity without
    restrictions                             231 (64.0)
  Return to usual activity with
    restrictions                             110 (30.5)
  Not return to usual activity                 4 (1.1)
  Missing                                     16 (4.4)

Therapist prediction of time for client
    to return to usual activity (d)
  <4 wk                                       25 (6.9)
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk            305 (84.5)
  Don't know                                  24 (6.6)
  Missing                                      7 (1.9)

                                                          No. of
                                                          Variables in
                                                          Regression
Variable                                       Range      Equation

Demographic
Age (y) (b)                                    15-88      1

Age by decade
  10-19
  20-29
  30-39
  40-49
  50-59
  60-69
  70-79
  80-89
  Missing

Sex (b)                                                   1
  Male
  Female
  Missing

Comorbidities
Total count of problems
    (by diagnosis) (b)                          0-7       1

  0
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  Missing

Total count in which the problem
    limits activity (b)                         0-7       1

  0
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  Missing

Disorder-related

Recurrence
  Recurrent problem (within
    last 6 mo) (b)                                        1
  Not recurrent problem (recurrence
    >6 mo or no recurrence)
  Missing

Nature of onset (b)                                       1
  Sudden
  Gradual
  Missing

Duration of current                                       1
    problem/discomfort (b)
  <4 wk
  4-12 wk
  >12 wk
  Missing

Pain intensity/severity
    (past week) (b)                            10-100     1
  10 (no pain)
  20
  30
  40
  50
  60
  70
  80
  90
  100 (pain as bad as can be)
  Missing

No. of treatment sessions                                 0
Duration of treatment (days)                              0
Surgery or no surgery
  Surgical (operation within
    past 6 mo) (b)                                        1
  Nonsurgical (no operation or
    operation >6 mo)
  Missing

Disability measure

Working status (b)                                        1
  Able to work or reason for not
    working unrelated to shoulder
    problem
  Reason for not working related to
    shoulder problem
  Missing

Workers' compensation claim (b)                           1
  Claim for current shoulder problem
  No claim for current shoulder problem
  Missing

Patient global rating of shoulder
    injury/problem (b)                          1-5       1
  1 (very mild)
  2 (mild)
  3 (moderate)
  4 (severe or serious)
  5 (very severe or serious)
  Missing

DASH score (b)                                5.8-93.3    1 (c)
  Missing

Physical Component Score (SF-36) (b)         17.5-64.2    1
  Missing
Mental Component Score (SF-36) (b)           12.2-71.1    1
  Missing

Medication use

Over-the-counter (OTC) medication use (b)                 1
  No days
  Few days
  Some days
  Most days
  All days
  Missing

Prescription medication use (b)                           1
  No days
  Few days
  Some days
  Most days
  All days
  Missing

Clinical findings
Muscle wasting (d)                                        2
  Some degree of wasting (mild,
    moderate, severe)
  No wasting
  Other (not tested, unable to test)
  Missing

Restriction in ROM (active or passive) (d)                2
  Some degree of limitation of ROM
    (mild, moderate, severe)
  No limitation of ROM
  Other (not tested, unable to test)
  Missing

Muscle strength (d)                                       2
  Some degree of decreased strength
    (mild, moderate, severe)
  Normal
  Other (not tested, unable to test)
  Missing

Expectation for recovery

Patient prediction for recovery (b)                       1
  Get better soon or already better
  Get better slow
  Don't know
  Stay same or get worse
  Missing

Patient estimate of time to return to                     2
    usual activity (d)
  <4 wk
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk
  Don't know
  Missing

Therapist prediction for recovery (d)                     1
  Return to usual activity without
    restrictions
  Return to usual activity with
    restrictions
  Not return to usual activity
  Missing

Therapist prediction of time for client
    to return to usual activity (d)                       2
  <4 wk
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk
  Don't know
  Missing

(a) DASH=Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand measure,
SF-36=36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, ROM= range of motion.

(b) Prognostic variable with support in the musculoskeletal
literature.

(c) "DASH at discharge" model only.

(d) Variable selected for exploration.

Table 2.
Baseline, Discharge (or 12 Weeks), log (1 + DASH at Discharge),
and Change in DASH Outcome Scores for Study Sample (a,b)

DASH Score (c)            Mean     SD    Median   Range

Baseline (n = 348/361)     40.1   19.6     36.6   5.8 to 93.3
Discharge (or 12 wk)       17.9   16.9     12.5     0 to 80.8
  (n = 281/289)
log (1 + DASH               2.5    1.0      2.6     0 to 4.4
  discharge)
  (n = 281/289)
Change in DASH            -22.2   17.5    -19.2   -80 to 26.7
  (n = 272/289)

(a) DASH=Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, all Hand measure. DASH
score/100 (score of 100-more disability), negative change in DASH
score=more improvement.

(b) There were 361 baseline respondents and 289 respondents at
follow-up (follow-up rate-80%).

(c) Number of patients with calculable DASH scores/number of subjects
at follow-up in parentheses.

Table 3.
Univariate Analyses on Study Sample for log (1 + DASH at
Discharge) (a)

                                                         95%
                                                         Confidence
Variable                                 [beta]   SE     Interval

Demographic

Age (by decade)                            0.11   0.04    0.03, 0.19
Sex (male)                                -0.22   0.12   -0.46, 0.02

Comorbidities:
  Total count of problems                  0.11   0.04    0.03, 0.19
  Total count limiting activity            0.21   0.06    0.09, 0.33

Disorder-related

Recurrent problem                         -0.28   0.17   -0.61, 0.05
Nature of onset (sudden onset)             0.02   0.12   -0.21, 0.26
Duration of current problem                0.03   0.07   -0.11, 0.18
Pain intensity                             0.13   0.03   -0.08, 0.18
Surgery                                    0.51   0.21   -0.11, 0.92

Disability measures

Current work status                       -0.59   0.18   -0.94, -0.24
Workers' compensation                      0.74   0.20    0.34, 1.14
Patient global rating of problem           0.46   0.07    0.32, 0.60
Physical Component Score (SF-36)          -0.04   0.006  -0.05, -0.03
Mental Component Score (SF-36)            -0.02   0.005  -0.03, -0.007
DASH (baseline)                            0.03   0.002   0.02, 0.03

Medication use

OTC medication use                         0.18   0.04    0.10, 0.26
Prescription medication use                0.15   0.04    0.08, 0.22

Clinical findings

Muscle wasting
  Normal                                  -0.72   0.98   -2.65, 1.21
  Some                                    -0.73   0.98   -2.66, 1.21
  Other                                    0      --      --

Restriction of ROM (active or passive)
  Normal                                  -1.15   0.46   -2.06, -0.23
  Some                                    -0.75   0.44   -1.61, 0.10
  Other                                    0      --      --

Muscle strength
  Normal                                  -1.01   0.34   -1.68, -0.33
  Some decrease                           -0.88   0.25   -1.37, -0.40
  Other                                    0      --      --

Expectation for recovery

Patient prediction for recovery            0.30   0.09     0.12, 0.47

Patient estimate of time to return
    to activity
  <4 wk                                   -0.67   0.17   -1.01, -0.32
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk         -0.24   0.13   -0.50, 0.03
  Don't know                               0      --       --
Therapist prediction of return to
  activity                                 0.67   0.11    0.45, 0.90

Therapist prediction of time to
    return to activity
  <4 wk                                   -1.27   0.33   -1.92, -0.62
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk         -0.57   0.24   -1.04, -0.09
  Don't know                               0      --      --

                                                  Advanced to
Variable                                   p      Final Model (b)

Demographic

Age (by decade)                          .007     Yes
Sex (male)                               .0681    Yes

Comorbidities:
  Total count of problems                .0109    Yes
  Total count limiting activity          .0005    Yes

Disorder-related

Recurrent problem                        .097     Yes
Nature of onset (sudden onset)           .836
Duration of current problem              .6257
Pain intensity                          <.0001    Yes
Surgery                                  .0138    Yes

Disability measures

Current work status                      .0009    Yes
Workers' compensation                    .0003    Yes
Patient global rating of problem        <.0001    Yes
Physical Component Score (SF-36)        <.0001    Yes
Mental Component Score (SF-36)           .0012    Yes
DASH (baseline)                         <.0001    Yes

Medication use

OTC medication use                      <.0001    Yes
Prescription medication use             <.0001    Yes

Clinical findings

Muscle wasting
  Normal                                 .7608
  Some
  Other

Restriction of ROM (active or passive)            Yes
  Normal                                 .0201
  Some
  Other

Muscle strength                                   Yes
  Normal                                 .0016
  Some decrease
  Other

Expectation for recovery

Patient prediction for recovery          .001     Yes

Patient estimate of time to return
    to activity                                   Yes
  <4 wk                                  .001
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk
  Don't know
Therapist prediction of return to
  activity                              <.0001    Yes

Therapist prediction of time to                   Yes
    return to activity
  <4 wk                                  .001
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk
  Don't know

(a) Based on factors selected from the literature and College of
Physiotherapists of Ontario or Institute for Work and Health requests.
[beta] = unstandardized beta coefficient, SE = standard error,
DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand measure,
SF-36 = 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, OTC = over the counter,
ROM = range of motion. Higher DASH score = greater disability.
Other (not tested, unable to test) is a dummy variable code.

(b) P < .25.

Table 4.
Univariate Analyses on Study Sample for Change in DASH (a)

                                                         95%
                                                         Confidence
Variables                              [beta]    SE      Interval

Demographic

Age (by decade)                          1.99    0.72     0.58, 3.40
Sex (male)                              -2.61    2.16    -6.86, 1.65
Comorbidities
  Total count of problems                0.48    0.76    -1.01, 1.97
  Total count limiting activity         -1.3     1.08    -3.42, 0.83

Disorder-related

Recurrent problem                       -4.85    3.04    -10.82, 1.13
Nature of onset (sudden onset)          -2.61    2.11     -6.77, 1.55
Duration of current problem              4.64    1.25      2.18, 7.10
Pain intensity                          -2.61    0.46     -3.52, -1.70
Surgery                                -15.67    3.62    -22.80, -8.55

Disability measures

Current work status                      9.62    3.17      3.37, 15.86
Workers' compensation                   -5.28    3.69    -12.56, 1.99
Patient global rating of problem        -7.78    1.28    -10.30, -5.27
Physical Component Score (SF-36)         0.5     0.16      0.28, 0.73
Mental Component Score (SF-36)           0.34    0.1       0.15, 0.53

Medication use

OTC medication use                      -1.27    0.76     -2.76, 0.22
Prescription medication use             -1.8     0.64     -3.04, -0.50

Clinical findings

Muscle wasting
  None                                 -10.28   17.76    -45.26, 24.69
  Some                                  -9.45   17.70    -44.31, 25.40
  Other                                  0      --       --

Restriction of ROM (active
    or passive)
  Normal                                19.58    8.34      3.16, 36.0
  Some                                  15.08    7.82     -0.32, 30.48
  Other                                  0       --      --

Muscle strength
  Normal                                12.85    6.21      0.62, 25.08
  Some                                  11.21    4.47      2.40, 20.01
  Other                                  0       --      --

Expectation for recovery
Patient prediction for recovery         -3.04    1.62     -6.23, 0.15

Patient estimate of time to return
    to activity
  <4 wk                                  0.75    3.23     -5.60, 7.10
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk        0.95    2.45     -3.88, 5.78
  Don't know                             0       --      --
Therapist prediction of return           1.99    2.13     -2.21, 6.18
   to activity
Therapist prediction of time to
    return to activity
  <4 wk                                 -0.02    6.01     -11.86, 11.81
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk       -1.46    4.40     -10.13, 7.21
  Don't know                             0       --      --

                                                    Advanced to
Variables                               P           Final Model (b)

Demographic

Age (by decade)                          .0059      Yes
Sex (male)                               .2291      Yes
Comorbidities
  Total count of problems                .5245
  Total count limiting activity          .2311      Yes

Disorder-related

Recurrent problem                        .1116      Yes
Nature of onset (sudden onset)           .2186      Yes
Duration of current problem              .0002      Yes
Pain intensity                          <.0001      Yes
Surgery                                 <.0001      Yes

Disability measures

Current work status                     <.0027      Yes
Workers' compensation                    .1537      Yes
Patient global rating of problem        <.0001      Yes
Physical Component Score (SF-36)        <.0001      Yes
Mental Component Score (SF-36)           .0005      Yes

Medication use

OTC medication use                       .0946      Yes
Prescription medication use              .0063      Yes

Clinical findings

Muscle wasting
  None                                   .5631
  Some
  Other

Restriction of ROM (active
    or passive)                                     Yes
  Normal                                 .0196
  Some
  Other

Muscle strength                                     Yes
  Normal                                 .0395
  Some
  Other

Expectation for recovery
Patient prediction for recovery          .0618      Yes

Patient estimate of time to return
    to activity
  <4 wk                                  .8164
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk
  Don't know
Therapist prediction of return           .3518
   to activity
Therapist prediction of time to
    return to activity
  <4 wk                                  .9969
  [greater than or equal to] 4 wk
  Don't know

(a) Based on factors selected from the literature and College of
Physiotherapists of Ontario or Institute for Work and Health requests.
[beta] = unstandardized beta coefficient, SE-standard error,
DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand measure,
SF-36 = 3G-Item Short-Form Health Survey, OTC = over the counter,
ROM = range of motion. Higher DASH score-greater disability. Other
(not tested, unable to test) is a dummy variable code.

(b) P < .25.

Table 5.
Final Multiple Regression Model: Predictors of Higher log
(1 + DASH Score at Discharge [or 12 Weeks]) (a)

                                                  95% Confidence
Variable                        [beta]   SE       Interval

Higher DASH (baseline) (0 to      0.02   0.002    0.01, 0.03
  100 [more disability])

Having a workers'                 0.55   0.19     0.18, 0.92
  compensation  claim
  (WSIB claim)

Therapist predicts more           0.42   0.10     0.21, 0.63
  restriction of patient
  return to usual activity

Older age (in decades)            0.13   0.03     0.06, 0.19

Being female                     -0.24   0.10    -0.45, -0.04

                                         Standardized   Partial
Variable                        P        [beta]         [R.sup.2]

Higher DASH (baseline) (0 to    <.0001    0.40          .20
  100 [more disability])

Having a workers'                .0036    0.16          .08
  compensation  claim
  (WSIB claim)

Therapist predicts more         <.0001    0.21          .04
  restriction of patient
  return to usual activity

Older age (in decades)           .0004    0.19          .03

Being female                     .0219   -0.12          .01

(a) DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand measure,
[beta] = unstandardized beta coefficient, SE = standard error,
[R.sup.2] (proportion of explained total variation associated by the
final model) = 35.6%, WSIB = Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
Higher DASH score = greater disability.

Table 6.
Final Multiple Regression Model: Predictors of Larger Improvement in
DASH (In Terms of Change in DASH Score) (a)

                                                       95% Confidence
Variable                                [beta]   SE     Interval

Higher pain intensity                    -1.56   0.5    -2.56, -0.57
  (10 [no pain] to 100)
Having shoulder surgery (past 6 mo)     -15.73   3.46  -22.55, -8.9
Shorter duration of current shoulder      4.04   1.24    1.60, 6.47
  problem
Younger age (in decades)                  1.58   0.7     0.21, 2.96
Worse Physical Component Score (PCS)      0.25   0.13    0.01, 0.05
  on the SF-36

                                                Standardized  Partial
Variable                                P       [beta]        [R.sup.2]

Higher pain intensity                    .002   -0.2          .08
  (10 [no pain] to 100)
Having shoulder surgery (past 6 mo)     <.0001  -0.26         .07
Shorter duration of current shoulder     .001    0.19         .04
  problem
Younger age (in decades)                 .0243   0.13         .02
Worse Physical Component Score (PCS)     .0448   0.13         .01
  on the SF-36

(a) DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand measure,
[beta] = unstandardized beta coefficient, SE = standard error,
[R.sup.2] (proportion of explained total variation associated by the
final model) = 22.5%. Greater negative change in DASH score = more
improvement.

Table 7.
Factors That Predict Disability

Predictors of Higher DASH Score at Discharge (or 12 Weeks)

Those with relatively higher levels of disability at discharge compared
  with those who had lower levels of disability at discharge were more
  likely to:
  * have higher baseline disability
  * be covered by a workers' compensation claim
  * have their physical therapist predict (at baseline) that they
    would have restricted activities at discharge
  * be of older age
  * be female

Predictors of Larger Improvement in DASH (in
Terms of Change in DASH Score)

Those who showed more improvement in terms of change
  in DASH score at discharge were more likely to:
  * have higher initial pain intensity at baseline
  * be a postsurgical case (in past 6 months)
  * have shorter duration of symptoms before
    commencing physical therapy
  * be younger age
  * have worse physical health