Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37561796›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Coordinators in the return-to-work process: Mapping their work models.

Veronica Svärd, Erik Berglund, Elisabeth Björk Brämberg, Niklas Gustafsson, Monika Engblom, Emilie Friberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Veronica SvärdUnit of Social Work, Department of Social Sciences, Södertörn University, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3868-0254
Erik BerglundDivision of Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Elisabeth Björk BrämbergUnit of Intervention and Implementation Research for Worker Health, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Niklas GustafssonDivision of Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Monika EngblomDivision of Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emilie FribergDivision of Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SESödertörn University · SEUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn recent decades, many countries have implemented return-to-work coordinators to combat high rates of sickness absence and insufficient collaboration in the return-to-work process. The coordinators should improve communication and collaboration between stakeholders in the return-to-work process for people on sickness absence. How they perform their daily work remains unexplored, and we know little about to what extent they collaborate and perform other work tasks to support people on sickness absence. This study examines which work models return-to-work coordinators use in primary healthcare, psychiatry and orthopaedics in Sweden.

methodsA questionnaire was sent to all 82 coordinators in one region (89% response rate) with questions about the selection of patients, individual patient support, healthcare collaboration, and external collaboration. Random forest classification analysis was used to identify the models.

resultsThree work models were identified. In model A, coordinators were more likely to select certain groups of patients, spend more time in telephone than in face-to-face meetings, and collaborate fairly much. In Model B there was less patient selection and much collaboration and face-to-face meetings. Model C involved little patient selection, much telephone contact and very little collaboration. Model A was more common in primary healthcare, model C in orthopaedics, while model B was distributed equally between primary healthcare and psychiatry.

conclusionThe work models correspond differently to the coordinator's assignments of supporting patients and collaborating with healthcare and other stakeholders. The differences lie in how much they actively select patients, how much they collaborate, and with whom. Their different distribution across clinical contexts indicates that organisational demands influence how work models evolve in practice.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresOrthopedicsHumansReturn to WorkSick LeaveSurveys and QuestionnairesSweden

Identifiers

PMID37561796
PMCPMC10414594
OpenAlexW4385727429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.