A survey regarding physician recommendations regarding return to work

Clinical Work-Integrating Care in Current Practice: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Clinical work-integrating care (CWIC) refers to paying attention to work participation in a clinical setting. Working patients may benefit from CWIC. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent and nature to which medical specialists provide CWIC and what policies and guidelines oblige or recommend specialists to do.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies on the extent and nature of CWIC and supplemented by gray literature on policies and guidelines. Six main categories were defined a priori. Applying a meta-aggregative approach, subcategories were subsequently defined using qualitative data. Next, quantitative findings were integrated into these subcategories. A separate narrative of policies and guidelines using the same main categories was constructed.

RESULTS

In total, 70 studies and 55 gray literature documents were included. The main findings per category were as follows: (1) collecting data on the occupation of patients varied widely; (2) most specialists did not routinely discuss work, but recent studies showed an increasing tendency to do so, which corresponds to recent policies and guidelines; (3) work-related advice ranged from general advice to patient-physician collaboration about work-related decisions; (4) CWIC was driven by legislation in many countries; (5) specialists sometimes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams to provide CWIC; and (6) medical guidelines regarding CWIC were generally not available.

CONCLUSION

Medical specialists provide a wide variety of CWIC ranging from assessing a patient's occupation to extensive collaboration with patients and other professionals to support work participation. Lack of medical guidelines could explain the variety of these practices.

Health-care providers' perspectives on factors influencing return-to-work after surgery for nontraumatic conditions of the upper extremity

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a descriptive survey.

INTRODUCTION

Health care providers (HCPs) are key stakeholders who facilitate workers' return to work (RTW) following upper extremity surgery. Hand therapists play a major role in this process, yet we do not know if and/or how their perspectives differ from other HCPs.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study examined HCPs' opinion on factors that influence RTW after surgery for nontraumatic upper extremity conditions and whether HCPs from different disciplines differed in their opinion.

METHODS

HCPs (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, hand therapists, exercise physiologists, psychologists, surgeons, and general practitioners) completed a survey rating 50 factors on a worker's ability to RTW. Each factor was scored using a 5-point Likert scale from "not" to "extremely" influential, which was later dichotomised. Agreement was indicated at 75%. The level of disagreement between disciplines was examined.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 787) identified 20 factors being influential on RTW. They are (in order from highest to lowest) poor pain coping (the highest, >85% of respondents), postoperative psychological state, RTW self-efficacy, employer/supervisor's support, employer's unwillingness for job modification, recovery expectations, job satisfaction, suitable duties availability, whether the job can be modified, and mood disorder diagnosis. There was agreement that two factors do not influence RTW, gender, and preemployment medical assessment. There was disagreement (P < .05) between HCP disciplines on six factors (obesity, comorbidities, doctors' RTW recommendation, diagnosis, fitness, income). There were no consistent patterns with respect to which professions disagreed across all six factors. Hand therapists differed from the other disciplines for three of the factors including diagnosis, comorbidities, and doctor's recommendation for RTW.

DISCUSSION

The factors that stakeholders agreed as having the greatest influence were mainly related to the worker (pain and psychological factors) and the workplace and are amenable to RTW interventions.

CONCLUSION

Interventions facilitating RTW and future research should consider the factors identified by HCPs in this study.

Motivation in the return to work process: a self-determination cluster approach

PURPOSE

Motivation may predict return to work (RTW), yet the measurement of motivation needs more scientific evidence. We adopt a dimensional approach, based on the self-determination theory (SDT), distinguishing between amotivation, controlled and autonomous motivation. We seek to explore the presence of these dimensions in sick-disabled patients, and are interested in associations with quality of life, depression, patient's predictions of RTW, and health care provider estimations of patient's motivation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study in 336 patients was conducted. Motivation was assessed using the Motivation at Work Scale (MAWS) and examined in relation to patient outcomes, patient's prediction of RTW, and health care provider estimations of patients' motivation. A cluster analysis was performed, and differential associations between motivational profiles were explored.

RESULTS

Cluster analysis revealed four profiles. Highly controlled profiles were most prevalent, reported poorer mental quality of life, and expected a longer time before RTW, regardless of the level of autonomous motivation. Interestingly, the health care provider's estimation was not related to controlled motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that SDT may help to differentiate people with a work disability regarding their motivation to RTW. Most notably, the devastating consequences of controlled motivation are discussed, and clinical implications are provided.Implications for RehabilitationAssessing the different dimensions of motivation in the context of RTW will be a significant advance as the self-report measures appear to be viable tools.Controlled motivation, which indicates that people are motivated to RTW but only because they "have to", has negative consequences yet a high prevalence and should therefore be addressed by the practitioner.Practitioners should keep in mind that employees are motivated by several motives at the same time, with some being more beneficial than others.Controlled motivation can be converted into autonomous (i.e., good quality) motivation by supporting autonomy of the patient, by supporting their relationships with colleagues, managers, and health care providers and by supporting their feeling of competence in the RTW process.

Analysis of Factors Affecting Return to Work After Surgical Treatment in Patients with AO Type C Distal Humerus Fractures

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional results of distal humerus fractures which were treated by open reduction and fixation with pre-contoured angular stable plates in young patients, and investigate whether the patients could return to their pre-injury work and patients' financial conditions while they were not working.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 48 patients, ages between 18 and 55 years, working in a job and having AO/OTA type C distal humerus fracture were retrospectively evaluated. Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was used to determine functional results. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated to determine the rate of union, degenerative changes, malunion and heterotopic ossification. Financial outcome form was constituted by the authors and the patients asked whether she/he could return to their pre-injury works after treatment finished and the financial status of the patients during the treatment and after the treatment.

RESULTS

The mean flexion-extension arc was 114° ± 12°(range 85°-135°) and the mean MEPS score was 85 ± 11(range 65-100). The average time to return to work was 6.5 ± 2.4 months (3-12 months). AO type C2 and C3 fractures and heterotopic ossification negatively affected the functional results and also adversely affected the patients' return to their pre-injury works. 38 (79%) patients returned to pre-injury work and 29 (76%) of them started to work at the same position before the fracture occured. Nine of 38 patients (24%) had to change their positions. Among the 48 patients, 10 patients (21%) could not return to the same work, 7 of them found light duty and 3 of them had not been to work.

CONCLUSION

Although the functional results of surgical treatment of intra-articular distal humerus fractures are good, at the end of the treatment, especially heavy workers may have difficulties in returning to their former works.

Experts' perspective on a definition for delayed return-to-work after surgery for nontraumatic upper extremity disorders: Recommendations and implications

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive study.

INTRODUCTION

A delayed return to work (RTW) is often associated with poorer outcomes after a workplace injury but is ill defined.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To define delayed RTW after surgery for nontraumatic upper extremity conditions.

METHODS

Experts were consulted to define delayed RTW and whether a universal time point can determine the transition from early to delayed RTW.

RESULTS

Forty-two experts defined a delayed RTW as either a worker not returning to preinjury (or similar) work within the expected time frame (45%); not returning to any type of work (36%); or recovering slower than expected (12%). Two-thirds of experts believed that universal time points to delineate delayed RTW should be avoided.

DISCUSSION

Multiple factors complicate a uniform definition of delayed RTW.

CONCLUSION

Defining delayed RTW should be individualized with due consideration to the type of work. Time-based cutoffs for outcome measurement may not be appropriate with continuous measures more appropriate in research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Decision analysis V.