Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33881671›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021

Systematic Review of the Impact on Return to Work of Return-to-Work Coordinators.

M Dol, S Varatharajan, E Neiterman, E McKnight, M Crouch, E McDonald, C Malachowski, N Dali, E Giau, E MacEachen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.2field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Users' Perspectives on the Organization of Rehabilitation Services - A Focus Group Study of User Organization Representatives in Norway.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M DolSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
S VaratharajanSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
E NeitermanSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
E McKnightSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
M CrouchSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
E McDonaldSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
C MalachowskiUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe St N, Oshawa, ON, L1G 0C5, Canada.
N DaliSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
E GiauSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
E MacEachenSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. ellen.maceachen@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-6477-7650
University of Waterloo · CAOntario Tech University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose We conducted a systematic review to understand the impact that return-to-work coordinators (RTWCs) have on return to work (RTW) outcomes for sick/injured workers. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ABI Inform were searched from January 1, 2000 to September 16, 2020. Of 2,927 retrieved and screened citations, 14 quantitative articles fulfilled the eligibility and quality criteria. Quality assessment, data extraction, and evidence synthesis followed article screening. Results We focused on the impact of RTWCs for outcomes of work absence, RTW rates, quality of life, and cost-benefit. Our final synthesis included 14 articles. We found strong evidence that work absence duration was reduced when workers had face-to-face contact with a RTWC. As well, there was strong evidence linking face-to-face RTWC interventions with higher RTW rates and moderate evidence that this reduced intervention costs. RTWC interventions involving the identification of barriers and facilitators to RTW also showed promising results. However, only limited evidence was found that RTWCs improved quality of life for workers. Conclusions Our synthesis identifies key features of RTW interventions that improve RTW outcomes. Future high-quality research should measure long-term outcomes of RTWC interventions to evaluate sustainability and consider the nature of work. They should also focus on RTWC impact on worker quality of life assessments and for older workers and workers with chronic health conditions.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeReturn to WorkHumansCase managementReturn to work coordinationSystematic reviewWork absence

Identifiers

PMID33881671
OpenAlexW3155903238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.