ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021
A Systematic Search and Review of Questionnaires Measuring Individual psychosocial Factors Predicting Return to Work After Musculoskeletal and Common Mental Disorders.
Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting Work Disability Related to Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review of the Most Clinically Relevant Tools.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Evaluation of the Tools Measuring Work-Related Psychosocial Factors in Prospective Research on Sickness Absence of Health Care Workers.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Evaluation of a general practitioner-based rehabilitation follow-up consultation to promote patients' use of medical rehabilitation aftercare: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trial.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Assessing the return-to-work mode of precarious workers with mental health issues: reliability, validity, and usability of the REMODE-tool.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Obstacles, Self-Efficacy, and Strategies for Returning to Work after Experiencing Burnout: Paving the Path to Sustainable Reintegration.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Work Ability during the Return to Work Process: Results from a Mixed Methods Follow-Up Study Among Employees with Common Mental Disorders.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Trajectories of Work Ability After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Latent Class Growth Analysis.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Assessment of Work Ability in People with Musculoskeletal Disorders in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Self-Reported Tools.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
- "I'm pulling through because of you": injured workers' perspective of workplace factors supporting return to work under the Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board scheme.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- Return to work after sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorder or injury: a longitudinal study conducted in Brazil.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Recognition During the Return-to-Work Process in Workers with Common Mental Disorders.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Comparison between OLIF and MISTLIF in degenerative lumbar stenosis: an age-, sex-, and segment-matched cohort study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Practical pathway for the management of depression in the workplace: a Canadian perspective.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Review
- Usability of self-reported assessment of work functioning in municipal occupational rehabilitation teams: A qualitative study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Individual psychosocial factors are crucial in the return to work (RTW) process of workers with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and common mental disorders (CMDs). However, the quality and validity of the questionnaires used to measure these factors have rarely been investigated. The present systematic search and literature review aims at identifying, categorizing, and evaluating the questionnaires (measurement tools) used to measure individual psychosocial factors related to the perception of the personal condition and motivation to RTW that are predictive of successful RTW among workers with MSDs or CMDs. Methods Through a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO library databases and grey literature, we identified the individual psychosocial factors predictive of successful RTW among these workers. Then, we retrieved the questionnaires used to measure these factors. Finally, we searched for articles validating these questionnaires to describe them exhaustively from a psychometric and practical point of view. Results: The review included 76 studies from an initial pool of 2263 articles. Three common significant predictors of RTW after MSDs and CMDs emerged (i.e., RTW expectations, RTW self-efficacy, and work ability), two significant predictors of RTW after MSDs only (i.e., work involvement and the self-perceived connection between health and job), and two significant predictors of RTW after CMDs only (i.e., optimism and pessimism). We analyzed 30 questionnaires, including eight multiple-item scales and 22 single-item measures. Based on their psychometric and practical properties, we evaluated one of the eight multiple-item scales as questionable and five as excellent. Conclusions: With some exceptions (i.e., self-efficacy), the tools used to measure individual psychosocial factors show moderate to considerable room for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.