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