Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17929149›Full record

ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2007

Measuring return to work.

Radoslaw Wasiak, Amanda E Young, Richard T Roessler, Kathryn M McPherson, Mireille N M van Poppel, Johannes R Anema

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Radoslaw WasiakLiberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Center for Disability Research, Hopkinton, MA, USA. radoslaw.wasiak@libertymutual.com
Amanda E Young
Richard T Roessler
Kathryn M McPherson
Mireille N M van Poppel
Johannes R Anema

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is argued that one of the factors limiting the understanding of return to work (RTW) following work disability is the use of measurement tools that do not capture a complete picture of workers' RTW experiences. To facilitate the investigation of RTW, the current authors proposed a developmental conceptualization of RTW, which argues for an expanded awareness that encompasses four phases: off work, work reintegration, work maintenance and advancement. This paper reports on work undertaken with the aim of operationalizing the conceptualization.

methodsA review of the RTW and related literature, with databases searched including PubMed, EconLit, and PsycInfo. We began by extracting details of RTW instruments used by previous researchers. We then interpreted these within the context of the phases of RTW. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) to inform our thinking and coding structure, we conceptualized phase-based RTW outcomes and categorized them as 'tasks and actions', 'contextual' or 'process driven'. Iteratively, we reviewed existing instruments for their use as measures of RTW. Where gaps in instrumentation were found, the wider vocational and career assessment literature was searched for instruments that could be adapted for use in RTW research.

resultsResults indicate that, although numerous research instruments have been used to assess RTW, within the scientific literature some important dimensions of RTW lack instrumentation. In particular, we found that outcomes such as goal setting, motivation, expectation, job seeking, work maintenance, and career advancement require operationalization. Amongst the outcomes had been operationalized, we found considerable variation in conceptual development and application.

conclusionsThe lack of consistency and comprehensiveness of RTW measurement is one of the factors compromising the advancement of the field of RTW research. It is suggested that a more complete and psychometrically sound array of research instruments, grounded within a commonly adopted paradigm, would further the understanding of RTW and the factors affecting it.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationHealth StatusOccupational HealthOutcome Assessment, Health CareWork Capacity EvaluationHealth Status IndicatorsHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.