Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18392925›Full record

ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2008

How well do return-to-work interventions for musculoskeletal conditions address the multicausality of work disability?

Catherine Briand, Marie-José Durand, Louise St-Arnaud, Marc Corbière

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine BriandSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Succursale Centre-Ville, C.P. 6128, Montreal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7. catherine.briand@umontreal.ca
Marie-José Durand
Louise St-Arnaud
Marc Corbière
Université de Sherbrooke · CAUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe best-documented return-to-work rehabilitation programs concern workers with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD). For this clientele, a global perspective has been adopted which explains the multicausality of work disability. This perspective of work disability proposes that return-to-work interventions should address three central elements: individual psychological factors, work environmental factors and factors related to the involvement of the various stakeholders. Long-term work disability is no longer seen simply as the consequence of impairment, but rather as the result of interactions between the worker and main systems: the health care, work environment and financial compensation systems.

methodsThis paper presents a descriptive content analysis of return-to-work interventions delivered to workers with MSKD which consider this global perspective and which are found to be effective in systematic reviews of the literature.

resultsThe review of programs designed for workers with MSKD showed that eleven programs address the individual clinical and psychological factors, work environmental factors and factors related to the involvement of the various stakeholders, but in different ways. Only two programs met the essential components identified by the literature. These essential components are: centralized coordination of the worker's return to work, formal individual psychological and occupational interventions, workplace-based interventions, work accommodations, contact between the various stakeholders and interventions to foster concerted action.

conclusionsInterventions which involve the work environment and concerted action by the various partners seem to require the most investment in terms of energy. The establishment of common principles and shared values regarding work rehabilitation as well as less divided mechanisms for action among the various partners should be considered.

Indexed as

Accidents, OccupationalCausalityHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesMusculoskeletal SystemOccupational Diseases

Identifiers

PMID18392925
OpenAlexW2100051012

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.