ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2008
Clinical utility of predictors of return-to-work outcome following work-related musculoskeletal injury.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A longitudinal study of the working relationship and return to work: perceptions by clients and occupational therapists in primary health care.BMC family practice · 2015Article
- Factors Associated With Success in an Occupational Rehabilitation Program for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical expertise is one source of evidence that is generally under-utilised in the development of an evidence-base in rehabilitation. The current study aimed to incorporate this valuable clinical expertise in determining the utility of multiple predictors of return-to-work outcome following injury.
methodsFollowing systematic review of the rehabilitation literature and review, a total of 85 predictors were evaluated for clinical relevance by an expert panel of rehabilitation practitioners (n = 12). Each predictor was rated according the importance of the predictor in rehabilitation, its potential for modification and its classification into one of seven broad areas. In addition, practitioners were asked to provide a rationale as to why the predictor was important to rehabilitation. Analyses were conducted using inter-rater agreement statistics and text analysis.
resultsPredictors that were most commonly reviewed in the literature were not considered to be of greatest clinical utility, according to the current sample. From the total predictor set, only nine predictors were identified as clinically useful (i.e., both highly important and highly modifiable). Text analysis of the qualitative data revealed that these nine predictors highlighted the significance of time, context and engagement in rehabilitation practice.
conclusionIn the current study, predictors that were considered most clinically relevant were those that generally described workplace related processes. The findings confirmed the underlying supportive and collaborative processes that integrate predictors and account for their influence on outcome. Future rehabilitation efforts and indeed, individual outcomes, could benefit by incorporating these key predictors in targeted programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18049879What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.