ArticlePloS one2026
Work restrictions and Unfitness to work: Prevalence and risk factors a cross-sectional study on 70 000 occupational visits.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have assessed work restrictions and unfitness to work simultaneously, particularly on large populations, and evidence on their main influencing factors remains limited.
objectiveTo assess prevalence and risk factors of work restrictions and unfitness to work.
methodWe included all visits conducted in occupational health departments of the Cher, over two consecutive years. Visits had to have a conclusion: fitness to work, temporary work restrictions, permanent work restrictions, and unfitness to work. Mixed multinomial models with individual random effects were used.
resultsAmong the 71,848 occupational health visits, 62,436 had a conclusion. Most (90.6%, 95 CI 90.4 to 90.8%) were fit to work, 3.2% (3.1 to 3.3%) had temporary restrictions, 4.9% (4.7 to 5.1%) had permanent restrictions, and 1.3% (1.2 to 1.4%) were unfit to work. The risk of temporary restrictions was multiplied by 1.69 (1.16 to 2.48) in workers over 55 vs < 25 years old; by 1.74 (1.42 to 2.14) in workers with disabilities; by 1.30 (1.07 to 1.58) for workers with 10-20 vs < 5 years of seniority; and by 1.57 (1.22 to 2.01) in companies with 50-199 vs < 10 workers. The risk of permanent restrictions was multiplied by 2.24 (1.68 to 2.97) in workers over 55 yo; by 1.86 (1.57 to 2.21) in workers with disabilities; by 1.47 (1.05 to 2.06) for qualified workers; by 1.24 (1.05 to 1.46) for workers with 10-20 years of seniority; and by 1.30 (1.07 to 1.58) for workers in companies with 50-199 employees. The risk of unfitness to work decreased with increasing seniority in the company, while a significant interaction between sex and sector of activity was observed for temporary restrictions.
conclusionNearly one worker out of ten were unfit to work or had restrictions. The main risk factors for both unfit to work and restrictions were older age, women, and return-to-work visits; whereas lower seniority and smaller companies were risk factors for unfit to work, and longer seniority and bigger companies were risk factors for restrictions.
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.