Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27704343›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2016

New Business Structures Creating Organizational Opportunities and Challenges for Work Disability Prevention.

Kerstin Ekberg, Glenn S Pransky, Elyssa Besen, Jean-Baptise Fassier, Michael Feuerstein, Fehmidah Munir, Peter Blanck, Hopkinton Conference Working Group on Workplace Disability Prevention

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Disability at Work: A Look Back and Forward.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Kerstin EkbergDivision of Community Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden. kerstin.ekberg@liu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-8031-7651
Glenn S PranskyLiberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, USA.
Elyssa BesenLiberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, USA.
Jean-Baptise FassierClaude Bernard University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Michael FeuersteinUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Fehmidah MunirSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Peter BlanckBurton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Hopkinton Conference Working Group on Workplace Disability Prevention

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Flexible work arrangements are growing in order to develop resource-efficient production and because of advanced technologies, new societal values, changing demographics, and globalization. The article aims to illustrate the emerging challenges and opportunities for work disability prevention efforts among workers in alternate work arrangements. Methods The authors participated in a year-long collaboration that ultimately led to an invited 3-day conference, "Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability," held October 14-16, 2015, in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a roundtable discussion with experts having direct employer experience. Results Both worker and employer perspectives were considered, and four common alternate work arrangements were identified: (a) temporary and contingent employment; (b) small workplaces; (c) virtual work/telework; and (d) lone workers. There was sparse available research of return-to-work (RTW) and workplace disability management strategies with regard to alternate work patterns. Limited research findings and a review of the grey literature suggested that regulations and guidelines concerning disabled workers are often ambiguous, leading to unsatisfactory protection. At the workplace level, there was a lack of research evidence on how flexible work arrangements could be handled or leveraged to support RTW and prevent disability. Potential negative consequences of this lack of organizational guidance and information are higher costs for employers and insurers and feelings of job insecurity, lack of social support and integration, or work intensification for disabled workers. Conclusions Future studies of RTW and workplace disability prevention strategies should be designed to reflect the multiple work patterns that currently exist across many working populations, and in particular, flexible work arrangements should be explored in more detail as a possible mechanism for preventing disability. Labor laws and policies need to be developed to fit flexible work arrangements.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthEmploymentHumansPersons with DisabilitiesRehabilitation, VocationalWorkplaceAlternate work arrangementsDisabilityEmployersResearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID27704343
PMCPMC5104761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.