Can the Maslach Burnout Inventory and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale be used to screen for risk of long-term sickness absence?

• Published in: International archives of occupational and environmental health Vol. 88; no. 4; pp. 467 - 475
• Main Authors: Roelen, C. A. M., van Hoffen, M. F. A., Groothoff, J. W., de Bruin, J., Schaufeli, W. B., van Rhenen, W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-05-2015; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Absenteeism; Adult; Area Under Curve; Burnout; Burnout, Professional - epidemiology; Earth and Environmental Science; Environment; Environmental Health; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Health Status Indicators; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders - epidemiology; Mental Disorders - etiology; Mental health; Musculoskeletal Diseases - epidemiology; Musculoskeletal Diseases - etiology; Netherlands; Occupational health; Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine; Original Article; Polls & surveys; Prospective Studies; Rehabilitation; Risk; Risk factors; Sick leave; Sick Leave - statistics & numerical data; Surveys and Questionnaires; Netherlands; Netherlands, Utrecht; Sick leave; Risk factor screening; Absenteeism; Prognostic research; ROC analysis; Mental health
• ISSN: 0340-0131; 1432-1246
• DOI: 10.1007/s00420-014-0981-2

Objectives
To investigate the Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey (MBI—GS) and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) for their ability to identify non-sicklisted employees at increased risk of long-term sickness absence (LTSA).
Methods
One-year prospective cohort study including 4,921 employees participating in occupational health surveys in the period 2008–2010. The MBI—GS and UWES were part of the health survey questionnaire and LTSA in the year following the health survey was retrieved from an occupational health register. Associations of baseline MBI—GS and UWES scores with LTSA during 1-year follow-up were stratified by the cause (mental, musculoskeletal, and other somatic illness) of LTSA. Discrimination was assessed by the area (AUC) under the receiver operating characteristic curve and considered practically useful for AUC ≥0.75.
Results
During 1-year follow-up, 103 employees (2 %) had LTSA due to mental (
N
 = 43), musculoskeletal (
N
 = 31), or other somatic (
N
 = 29) illness. MBI—GS scores were positively and UWES scores negatively associated with mental LTSA, but not musculoskeletal or other somatic LTSA. Discrimination between employees at high and low risk of mental LTSA was moderate: AUC = 0.68 for the MBI—GS and AUC = 0.70 for the UWES. Discrimination did not improve when the MBI—GS and UWES were used simultaneously.
Conclusion
The MBI—GS and UWES predicted future mental LTSA in non-sicklisted employees, but discrimination was not practically useful for identifying employees at high risk of LTSA. However, both instruments could be used to select employees for further assessment of mental LTSA risk.