Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37966538›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2024

Clinical Work-Integrating Care in Current Practice: A Scoping Review.

Lana Kluit, Coen A M van Bennekom, Annechien Beumer, Maayke A Sluman, Angela G E M de Boer, Astrid de Wind

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Lana KluitDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.kluit@amsterdamumc.nl.
Coen A M van BennekomDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Annechien BeumerDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maayke A SlumanDepartment of Cardiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands.
Angela G E M de BoerDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Astrid de WindDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeClinical work-integrating care (CWIC) refers to paying attention to work participation in a clinical setting. Working patients may benefit from CWIC. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent and nature to which medical specialists provide CWIC and what policies and guidelines oblige or recommend specialists to do.

methodsA scoping review was conducted. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies on the extent and nature of CWIC and supplemented by gray literature on policies and guidelines. Six main categories were defined a priori. Applying a meta-aggregative approach, subcategories were subsequently defined using qualitative data. Next, quantitative findings were integrated into these subcategories. A separate narrative of policies and guidelines using the same main categories was constructed.

resultsIn total, 70 studies and 55 gray literature documents were included. The main findings per category were as follows: (1) collecting data on the occupation of patients varied widely; (2) most specialists did not routinely discuss work, but recent studies showed an increasing tendency to do so, which corresponds to recent policies and guidelines; (3) work-related advice ranged from general advice to patient-physician collaboration about work-related decisions; (4) CWIC was driven by legislation in many countries; (5) specialists sometimes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams to provide CWIC; and (6) medical guidelines regarding CWIC were generally not available.

conclusionMedical specialists provide a wide variety of CWIC ranging from assessing a patient's occupation to extensive collaboration with patients and other professionals to support work participation. Lack of medical guidelines could explain the variety of these practices.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicHumansWork EngagementClinical decision-makingOccupational healthPhysician–patient relationsReturn to workSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37966538
PMCPMC11364593

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.