ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2022
The Cross-Country Comparison Model for Labor Participation (CCC Model for LP) of Persons with Chronic Diseases.
Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review on information and support needs regarding cancer and work: part I - cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
- Europe's future is at stake: no Public Health without Occupational Health.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Vitamin D Supplementation in the Czech Republic: Socioeconomic Determinants and Public Awareness Gaps.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Return to work following long term sickness absence: a comparative analysis of stakeholders' views and experiences in six European countries.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Identification of actions to be taken by managers to facilitate the return to work of cancer survivors: Consensus between managers and cancer survivors.BMC public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To design a model based on the three pillars of new institutional theory (NIT), that facilitates cross-country comparison of labor participation (LP) of people with chronic diseases. This model should support getting a comprehensive overview of factors representing country differences, understanding these differences and should support estimating cross-country transferability of policies and interventions in the context of Work Disability Prevention. Methods Based on NIT, a draft model was designed by means of (1) a literature review of empirical studies; (2) theoretical books and articles; (3) a focus group with six expert researchers. This draft model was (4) adapted in the context of academic education. Literature was searched on Web of Science and EBSCO host. Feedback on (use of) the model was received from the focus group, four different academic courses at 28 occasions and two international conferences. Results The cross-country comparison model for labor participation (CCC model for LP) of persons with chronic diseases is proposed consisting of five factors: (1) Legislation; (2) Norms & values in practice; (3) Culture; (4) Organization of WDP in practice; (5) Labor market characteristics. Within these factors and based on (in)direct empirical evidence, subfactors are distinguished. The feedback received led to renaming (sub) factors, improved visual representation and a tool for estimating transferability. Conclusions The CCC model for LP of persons with chronic diseases allows for a comprehensive understanding of country differences and cross-country transferability of policies and interventions. The CCC model can be used for other populations when population-specific subfactors are included.
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.