Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27787691›Full record

ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2016

Workplace Outcomes in Work-Disability Prevention Research: A Review with Recommendations for Future Research.

Amanda E Young, Eira Viikari-Juntura, Cécile R L Boot, Chetwyn Chan, David Gimeno Ruiz de Porras, Steven J Linton, Hopkinton Conference Working Group on Workplace Disability Prevention

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
9.6field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Disability and functioning assessment of women with RSI/WRMSDs: the use of the ICF checklist.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT · 2019
    Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Amanda E YoungLiberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA, 01748, USA. Amandae.young@libertymutual.com.
Eira Viikari-JunturaFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.
Cécile R L BootEMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Chetwyn ChanThe Hong Kong Polytechnic Institute, Hong Kong, China.
David Gimeno Ruiz de PorrasThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Steven J LintonCenter for Health and Medical Psychology, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Hopkinton Conference Working Group on Workplace Disability Prevention
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health · FIHong Kong Polytechnic University · HKÖrebro University · SELiberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Outcome assessment is a central issue in work disability prevention research. The goal of this paper was to (1) ascertain the most salient workplace outcomes; (2) evaluate the congruence between business and science perspectives; (3) illustrate new perspectives on assessing longitudinal outcomes; and (4) provide recommendations for advancing outcome evaluation in this area of research. Methods The authors participated in a year-long collaboration that culminated in a sponsored 3-day conference, "Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability", held October 14-16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, 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 question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience. Results Numerous workplace work-disability prevention outcome measures were identified. Analysis indicated that their applicability varied depending on the type of work disability the worker was experiencing. For those who were working, but with health-related work limitations (Type 1), predominant outcomes were measures of productivity, presenteeism, and work-related limitations. For those who were off work due to a health condition (Type 2), predominant outcomes were measures of time off work, supervisor/employee interactions, and return-to-work (RTW) preparation. For those who had returned to work (Type 3), predominant outcomes were measures of presenteeism, time until RTW, percentage of work resumption, employment characteristics, stigma, work engagement, co-worker interactions, and sustained or durable RTW. For those who had withdrawn from the labor force (Type 4), predominant outcomes were cost and vocational status. Discussion Currently available measures provide a good basis to use more consistent outcomes in disability prevention in the future. The research area would also benefit from more involvement of employers as stakeholders, and multilevel conceptualizations of disability outcomes.

Indexed as

ForecastingHumansOccupational InjuriesPersons with DisabilitiesResearchWorkplaceDisability outcome measuresMethodsResearch prioritiesReview

Identifiers

PMID27787691
PMCPMC5104762
OpenAlexW2540632090

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.