Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28224415›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational rehabilitation2018

Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners.

K L Cullen, E Irvin, A Collie, F Clay, U Gensby, P A Jennings, S Hogg-Johnson, V Kristman, M Laberge, D McKenzie and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 211 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
211citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
30.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

211 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 441 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Return to work in head and neck cancer survivors: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

151 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

K L CullenInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada. kcullen@iwh.on.ca.
E IrvinInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada.
A CollieInstitute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
F ClayInstitute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
U GensbyNational Centre for Occupational Rehabilitation, Rauland, Norway.
P A JenningsDepartment of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
S Hogg-JohnsonInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada.
V KristmanInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada.
M LabergeUniversity of Montreal and CHU Ste-Justine Research Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
D McKenzieInstitute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
S NewnamAccident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
A PalagyiInstitute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
R RuseckaiteInstitute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
D M SheppardAccident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
S ShourieAccident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
I SteenstraInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada.
D Van EerdInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada.
B C AmickInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada.
Monash University · AUInstitute for Work & Health · CABirdLife International · KEFlorida International University · USLakehead University · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of workplace-based return-to-work (RTW) interventions and work disability management (DM) interventions that assist workers with musculoskeletal (MSK) and pain-related conditions and mental health (MH) conditions with RTW. Methods We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis that ranked evidence as strong, moderate, limited, or insufficient. Results Seven electronic databases were searched from January 1990 until April 2015, yielding 8898 non-duplicate references. Evidence from 36 medium and high quality studies were synthesized on 12 different intervention categories across three broad domains: health-focused, service coordination, and work modification interventions. There was strong evidence that duration away from work from both MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions were significantly reduced by multi-domain interventions encompassing at least two of the three domains. There was moderate evidence that these multi-domain interventions had a positive impact on cost outcomes. There was strong evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy interventions that do not also include workplace modifications or service coordination components are not effective in helping workers with MH conditions in RTW. Evidence for the effectiveness of other single-domain interventions was mixed, with some studies reporting positive effects and others reporting no effects on lost time and work functioning. Conclusions While there is substantial research literature focused on RTW, there are only a small number of quality workplace-based RTW intervention studies that involve workers with MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions. We recommend implementing multi-domain interventions (i.e. with healthcare provision, service coordination, and work accommodation components) to help reduce lost time for MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions. Practitioners should also consider implementing these programs to help improve work functioning and reduce costs associated with work disability.

Indexed as

Return to WorkAbsenteeismCognitive Behavioral TherapyCohort StudiesHumansMental DisordersMusculoskeletal PainOccupational DiseasesOccupational InjuriesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMental healthMusculoskeletal painProgram effectivenessReturn to workSystematic reviewWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID28224415
PMCPMC5820404
OpenAlexW2590965493

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.