ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2023
Return to work following long term sickness absence: a comparative analysis of stakeholders' views and experiences in six European countries.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of Sustainable Return to Work After Burnout or Depression: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Understanding sustainable return to work during gender transition, a (mixed method) diary-based single-case study of a transgender woman: Spiegel im spiegel.International journal of transgender health · 2026Article
- Return-to-Work Experiences in Ontario Policing: Injured But Not Broken.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Analysis of the Return to Work Program for Disabled Workers during the Pandemic COVID-19 Using the Quality of Life and Work Ability Index: Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Return to work is a complex and challenging process which takes various forms in different contexts. The aim of this study is to explore and compare cross-country differences in stakeholders' experiences and views on actors, policies and practices relevant for return to work after long-term sickness absence. The comparative exploration is done in six countries with various legislative backgrounds, welfare and social dialogue systems. Methods Using a purposive sample, six multidisciplinary stakeholders group discussions were conducted in six countries: Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. A total of 51 individuals comprised of social partners, policymakers or representatives of public bodies and patient associations participated. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was employed to derive the most important themes in the discussions. Results Five major themes emerged from the group discussions. A graphic model is proposed to emphasize the variety of frameworks and processes across countries. Conclusions The core part of the return to work process is the dynamic relation between legislation, stakeholders and practices, which is influenced by broader national and societal factors. The cross-country variation in legislations, stakeholders and practices can be understood as a continuum, from low to high structuring, development and comprehensiveness. Although social dialogue appears to have a role in return to work process with variation across countries, it is not always on top of the agenda of social partners.
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.