Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31069384›Full record

ArticleJournal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association2019

Social Participation of Burn Survivors and the General Population in Work and Employment: A Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation (LIBRE) Profile Study.

Cayla J Saret, Pengsheng Ni, Molly Marino, Emily Dore, Colleen M Ryan, Jeffrey C Schneider, Lewis E Kazis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Interpreting Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation Profile Scores for Use by Clinicians, Burn Survivors, and Researchers.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Cayla J SaretDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts.
Pengsheng NiDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts.
Molly MarinoDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts.
Emily DoreDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts.
Colleen M RyanDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Jeffrey C SchneiderHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lewis E KazisDepartment of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts.

Funding

ACL HHS 90DP0035ACL HHS 90DP0055ACL HHS 90DPBU0001NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP000055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWork integration and retention after burn injury is a key outcome. Little is known about how burn survivors reintegrate into the workplace. This article compares scores on the Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation (LIBRE) Profile, a burn-specific measure of social participation, between burn survivors and general population samples, focusing on the Work and Employment domain.

methodsConvenience samples of burn survivors and the U.S. population were obtained. Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics and LIBRE Profile scores were assessed. To examine work and employment, we compared family and friends, social activities, and social interactions scores among working vs nonworking burn survivors.

resultsSix hundred and one burn survivors (320 employed) and 2000 U.S. residents (1101 employed) were surveyed. The mean age (P = .06), distributions of sex (P = .35), and Hispanic ethnicity (P = .07) did not differ significantly. Distributions of race (P < .01) and education (P = .01) differed significantly. The burn survivor sample had higher scores, demonstrating higher participation, for work and employment (mean = 49.5, SD = 9.42) than the general sample (mean = 46.94, SD = 8.94; P < .0001), which persisted after adjusting for demographic characteristics. Scores on the three domains administered to all respondents were higher (P < .001) for working than nonworking burn survivors.

conclusionDistributions indicated higher social participation in the burn survivor sample than the general sample. Possible explanations include sample bias; resilience, posttraumatic growth, or response-shift of survivors; and limitations of using items in the general sample. Working burn survivors scored higher than those not working. Future work can explore factors that mediate higher scores and develop interventions.

Indexed as

Social BehaviorSocial ParticipationAdultAgedBurnsCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID31069384
PMCPMC9302902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.