Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31907293›Full record

SynthesisOccupational and environmental medicine2020

What characterises work and workplaces that retain their employees following acquired brain injury? Systematic review.

Daniele Evelin Alves, Wendy Nilsen, Silje Christine Reistad Fure, Heidi Enehaug, Emilie Isager Howe, Marianne Løvstad, Louisa Fink, Nada Andelic, Øystein Spjelkavik

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Daniele Evelin AlvesWork Research Institute, OsloMet- Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway daniele.alves@oslomet.no.ORCID 0000-0001-7877-3343
Wendy NilsenWork Research Institute, OsloMet- Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Silje Christine Reistad FureInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Heidi EnehaugWork Research Institute, OsloMet- Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Emilie Isager HoweDepartment of Physical medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Marianne LøvstadDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Louisa FinkInstitute of Social Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany.
Nada AndelicDepartment of Physical medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Øystein SpjelkavikWork Research Institute, OsloMet- Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOOslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Oslo · NOGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review assessing workplace factors related to work retention (or return to work) in employees with acquired brain injury (ABI). Additionally, we aimed to synthesise the evidence and state of knowledge on this subject.

methodsA database search was performed in nine relevant electronic databases. Inclusion criteria were quantitative peer-reviewed publications empirically investigating the relationship between work/workplace factors and work retention in employees following ABI. The methodological quality was determined by Effective Public Health Practice Project scoring, and evidence was synthesised narratively.

resultsThirteen studies were included. We found moderate evidence for a negative relationship between manual work and work retention. We also found limited evidence for a U-shaped relationship between workload and complete work retention at 6 months and no relationship at 12 months; a positive relationship between managers, compared with non-managers, and faster work retention; a positive relationship between large enterprise size defined as ≥250 employees, and no relationship between large enterprise size, defined as ≥1000 employees, and work retention.

conclusionRelative to individual factors, there is little evidence on specific workplace factors' relationship to work retention among employees with ABI. For most workplace factors, there were too few high-quality studies to designate evidence as more than limited or insufficient. Future studies should replicate rigorous studies of well-defined modifiable workplace factors related to work retention. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018082201.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesOccupationsOrganizationsReturn to WorkWorkWorkplaceHumansPersons with DisabilitiesUnemploymentWorkloadbrain injuryreturn to workstrokeworkplacework retention

Identifiers

PMID31907293
PMCPMC7029230
OpenAlexW2998641413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.