ReviewThe British journal of occupational therapy2023
The effectiveness of occupational therapy supporting return to work for people who sustain serious injuries or develop long-term (physical or mental) health conditions: A systematic review.
Review in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: People with long-term conditions or recovering from serious injuries can struggle to return to work. The evidence for occupational therapy supporting return to work is limited. We aimed to identify and explain how occupational therapy interventions work. Methods: Systematic review. Seven databases were searched between 1 January 1980 and 15 June 2022. Studies measuring work-related outcomes among individuals receiving occupational therapy during absence from paid work were included. Multiple reviewers independently contributed to screening, quality appraisal and data extraction processes. Data were analysed as a narrative. Results: Twenty studies with 3866 participants were included; 17 were assessed as having high risk of bias. Occupational therapy was inconsistently acknowledged affecting study identification and occupational therapy components were poorly described. Meta-analysis was unfeasible due to outcome heterogeneity. Individually tailored occupational therapy focused on return to work in musculoskeletal conditions indicated the most promising outcomes. Key intervention components included vocational assessment, goal setting and self-management. Key mechanisms of action included early intervention, individualised support and being responsive to needs. Conclusion: Occupational therapists' contributions supporting return to work should be clearly attributed. Future effectiveness research should standardise the measurement of work outcomes to support meta-analysis. Developing a taxonomy for occupational therapy supporting return to work could facilitate comparisons across studies, highlighting occupational therapists' roles and facilitating training and benefits to patients.
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.