Search Again

Registry of Systematic Reviews - Search Results

Found 1 entry matching your search criteria.

1. Citation: Street, T. D., & Lacey, S. J. (2015). A systematic review of studies identifying predictors of poor return to work outcomes following workplace injury.?Work (Reading, Mass.), 51(2), 373-381. doi:10.3233/WOR-141980
Keywords: Systematic review; injury outcome; occupational rehabilitation; predictors of return to work; return to work; workplace injury
Abstract: Evaluates evidence on the injury, demographic and psychosocial characteristics associated with extended absenteeism from the workforce due to a workplace injury. Older age, female gender, divorced marital status, two or more dependent family members, lower education levels, reduced labor market desirability of the job, severity or sensitive injury locations, negative attitudes and outcome perceptions of the participant were found to be predictors of poor return to work rates.
Plain Language Summary:

Plain Language Title

Who returns to work after a workplace injury? A systematic planned out, orderly, regular review

Review go over, check Question

Which factors predict whether a person will successfully return go back to work after a workplace injury?


Injuries in the workplace can have serious implications for the injured person, their employer, and the overall economic community. Certain factors can predict whether a person will return go back to work after an injury. Identifying these factors may help individuals at risk chance of having poor return-to-work outcomes better utilize use, make use of rehabilitation programs and support services.

Search Date

The review go over, check includes studies published between January 1990 and November 2012.

Study Characteristics

The review go over, check includes nine studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. To be included, studies had to track participants' work status state, condition at least 3 months after a workplace injury. Studies also had to identify some factor cause, reason that might predict return-to-work outcomes. The review go over, check excludes studies that focused on just one type of workplace injury because they are not relevant to the general workforce. The review go over, check also excludes studies focusing on brain and trauma injury because these are likely to be long-term for a long time, over a long period of time injuries. Also, if a study only used qualitative or subjective data (such as focus groups), it was not included in the review. go over, check

NIDILRR Affiliation


Key Results

People tended to have worse return-to-work outcomes if they were older, female, divorced, or less educated, or if they had at least two dependent family members. Also, people were less likely to return go back to work if they had more severe strong, serious, harmful, dangerous, very bad injuries, worked in jobs with more manual labor or lower wages, or had negative attitudes about returning to work.

Use of Statistics

The review go over, check does not report statistical analysis.

Quality of Evidence

Four studies were of good quality, and five studies were of moderate medium, mild, controllable quality. No studies were of poor quality. The main limitation of the review go over, check is that most studies relied on retrospective information information, to learn more that happened to be available, so the information information, to learn more they collected was not specifically designed to answer the research question. In addition, follow-up times differed across studies, and some studies used lower quality methods of analysis.

Full-Text Availability Options:Full text available for fee
Link to Full Text:
Record Updated:2022-01-07

Home or Search again