Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23884716›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2014

Exploring the diversity of conceptualizations of work (dis)ability: a scoping review of published definitions.

Valérie Lederer, Patrick Loisel, Michèle Rivard, François Champagne

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Individual Work Attitudes and Work Ability.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Exploring the working conditions of disabled employees: a scoping review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2024
    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 2 countries.

Valérie LedererUniversity of Montreal Public Health Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada, valerie.lederer@umontreal.ca.
Patrick Loisel
Michèle Rivard
François Champagne
International Center for Public Health · USPublic Health Ontario · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeResearchers are confronted to numerous definitions of work ability/disability, influenced by their context of emergence, discipline, purpose, underlying paradigm and relationship to time. This study provides an in-depth analysis of the concept through a systematic scoping review and the development of an integrative concept map of work (dis)ability. The research questions are: How has work (dis)ability been conceptualized from the perspectives of research, practice, policy and industry in the published scientific literature? How has the conceptualization of work (dis)ability evolved over time?

methodsA search strategy was designed with a library scientist to retrieve scientific publications containing explicit definition(s) of work (dis)ability in leading-edge databases. The screening and the extraction of the definitions were achieved by duplicate assessment. The definitions were subject to a comparative analysis based on the grounded theory approach.

resultsIn total, 423 abstracts were retrieved from the bibliographic databases. After removing duplicates, 280 unique records were screened for inclusion. A final set of 115 publications containing unique original conceptual definitions served as basis for analysis.

conclusionsThe scientific literature does not reflect a shared, integrated vision of the exact nature and dimensions of work (dis)ability. However, except for a few definitions, there seems to be a consensus that work (dis)ability is a relational concept resulting from the interaction of multiple dimensions that influence each other through different ecological levels. The conceptualization of work (dis)ability also seems to have become more dynamic over time. The way work (dis)ability is defined has important implications for research, compensation and rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Concept FormationWork Capacity EvaluationHumansTerminology as TopicTimeWorkWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID23884716
OpenAlexW2085984322

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.