ArticleJAMA network open2026
Interdisciplinary Occupational Health System for Recovery From Musculoskeletal Injuries in US Army Personnel.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Musculoskeletal injuries are a leading cause of pain, disability, and lost workforce productivity in the US. These injuries are more frequent in physically demanding occupations, making strategies to accelerate recovery a critical economic, public health, and workforce sustainability issue. Objective: To evaluate whether an embedded interdisciplinary occupational health intervention was associated with faster return-to-work times after a musculoskeletal injury. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed longitudinal data on 43 870 526 person-month observations from active-duty US Army personnel collected between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2025. Exposure: Assignment to an Army unit with an embedded Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) occupational health system, which includes on-site physical therapists, athletic trainers, occupational therapists, registered dietitians, strength and conditioning coaches, and cognitive performance specialists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of limited duty workdays after a musculoskeletal injury and time to return to full duty. Linear regression, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to estimate the association between the intervention and recovery outcomes. Results: Among 1 420 195 musculoskeletal injuries in active-duty soldiers (mean [SD] age, 28.6 [7.64] years; 79% male) that resulted in limited duty restrictions, 19% were in soldiers exposed to the H2F embedded occupational health system. Exposure to H2F was associated with a 5.9% (95% CI, 7.2%-4.6%; P < .001) reduction in the duration of limited duty workdays compared with soldiers not exposed to H2F. Reductions in limited duty workdays were greater for lower-body injuries than for upper-body injuries. These reductions corresponded to an estimated 3.3 million to 4.0 million workdays restored during the study period, representing an annual labor productivity value of $93 million to $164 million. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of active-duty US Army soldiers, embedding an interdisciplinary occupational health system directly into the workplace was associated with a significantly accelerated recovery time from musculoskeletal injuries. These findings suggest that employer-sponsored occupational health interventions are a scalable strategy to reduce injury-related absenteeism and enhance workforce productivity, particularly in high-risk industries.
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.