Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40617990›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026

What Works (or Doesn't) in Return to Work after Physical Injury? A Qualitative Study on the Perspectives of Trauma Patients and Health Care Professionals on Barriers and Facilitators in Return to Work.

E de Groot, A M Hermans, M A C de Jongh, R E Geuze, I M van Dongen, S Hommes, R D Vromans, E Krahmer, T Houwen, K M E Janssens and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

E de GrootTranzo, Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, P.O. box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands. e.t.degroot@tilburguniversity.edu.
A M HermansTranzo, Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, P.O. box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
M A C de JonghTranzo, Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, P.O. box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
R E GeuzeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
I M van DongenDe Nieuwe Arts - Occupational Health Service, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
S HommesDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
R D VromansDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
E KrahmerDepartment of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
T HouwenDepartment of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
K M E JanssensTranzo, Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, P.O. box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
M C W JoosenTranzo, Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, P.O. box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeReturn to work (RTW) after physical injury may be challenging. This study aims to gain insight into barriers and facilitators in RTW, using a multi-stakeholder perspective from trauma patients with diverse injuries and health care professionals (HCPs).

methodsThree focus groups (n = 13) and four interviews were conducted with patients who sustained an extremity injury, spinal injury, or traumatic brain injury. Four focus groups (n = 19) were conducted with HCPs (e.g., occupational physicians, trauma surgeons). Data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed for patients and HCPs separately.

resultsBoth patients and HCPs emphasized that RTW can be influenced by the extent to which core work tasks are affected by the injury. Barriers in RTW related to lack of RTW follow-up care, limited consultation time, and lack of support in the work environment. Shared facilitators were found in work not affecting the injury, and when adequate support is provided by HCPs and the work environment. While patients and HCPs shared similar ideas, perspectives diverged on RTW follow-up care, provided by HCPs in hospital. HCPs in hospital perceive physical recovery as their core task instead of RTW follow-up care, which is perceived by patients to detract attention to life after injury.

conclusionAccording to patients and HCPs, regardless of the injury, the combination of injury type and job type influences RTW. Across injuries, receiving RTW follow-up care from HCPs in hospital was often missed, while perceived to facilitate RTW. Tailored RTW information could be useful to patients in resuming life after injury.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelReturn to WorkWounds and InjuriesAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelBrain Injuries, TraumaticFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSpinal InjuriesFollow-up careRecoveryReturn to workTraumaVocational rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID40617990
PMCPMC13364779

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.