Returning to work after a hand injury: Does ethnicity matter?

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in the Return-to-Work of Workers Experiencing Injury or Illness: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Non-White workers face more frequent, severe, and disabling occupational and non-occupational injuries and illnesses when compared to White workers. It is unclear whether the return-to-work (RTW) process following injury or illness differs according to race or ethnicity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine racial and ethnic differences in the RTW process of workers with an occupational or non-occupational injury or illness.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Eight academic databases - Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, ASSIA, ABI Inform, and Econ lit - were searched. Titles/abstracts and full texts of articles were reviewed for eligibility; relevant articles were appraised for methodological quality. A best evidence synthesis was applied to determine key findings and generate recommendations based on an assessment of the quality, quantity, and consistency of evidence.

RESULTS

15,289 articles were identified from which 19 studies met eligibility criteria and were appraised as medium-to-high methodological quality. Fifteen studies focused on workers with a non-occupational injury or illness and only four focused on workers with an occupational injury or illness. There was strong evidence indicating that non-White and racial/ethnic minority workers were less likely to RTW following a non-occupational injury or illness when compared to White or racial/ethnic majority workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy and programmatic attention should be directed towards addressing racism and discrimination faced by non-White and racial/ethnic minority workers in the RTW process. Our research also underscores the importance of enhancing the measurement and examination of race and ethnicity in the field of work disability management.

Simple clinical tools improve ability-to-work predictions for individuals 3-24 months after upper limb injury

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous previous studies, predicting the ability to work (ATW) after an upper limb injury (ULI) remains difficult for those still not working 3-24 months after their initial injury.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify simple prognostic characteristics that were associated with the long-term ATW for individuals who remained unable to work several months after the accident that caused their ULI.

METHODS

A single-center prospective observational study in a rehabilitation center in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. We included participants who were 18-60 years old, still unable to work because of persistent pain/disability 3-24 months after an ULI, and who were referred to our rehabilitation center for a 1-month intensive interdisciplinary treatment. Data were collected on personal characteristics, body function/structure variables, activity limitations/participation restrictions, and environmental factors. Participants' evolution during rehabilitation was assessed using functional tests/questionnaires and the 7-level self-reported Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assessment at discharge. Participant outcomes after 1 year were categorized as either able (ATW>0%) or unable (ATW=0%) to work. The best prognostic characteristics were selected by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 317 participants, 202 (64%) had an ATW>0% at 1 year. A grip strength ≥16 kg (Jamar Hand Dynamometer score - affected side) and "(I) do not take pain medicine" were independent predictors. Overall, 96% (26/27) of participants with these 2 characteristics had an ATW>0% at 1 year. The simultaneous absence of these characteristics predicted an unfavorable prognosis in 50% (59/119) of participants. For those who also had a positive PGIC score then 100% (25/25) of participants with these 3 characteristics had an ATW>0%; for those without, only 42% (19/45) had an ATW>0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Grip strength (≥16 kg) and not taking pain medicine are favorable prognostic factors for an ATW after an ULI. Their absence is associated with a poor ATW prognosis for half of people with ULI and should alert caregivers to risk of long-term absenteeism ("red flags"). Including data from a PGIC further improves the ATW prediction. We recommend that these 3 criteria be systematically evaluated.

Hand characteristics and functional abilities in predicting return to work in adult workers with traumatic hand injury

BACKGROUND: Hand injuries affect a person’s functioning, thus impeding their abilities to return to work. There is a limited understanding in return to work of the overall predictors when including hand characteristics and functional abilities. Therefore, it is essential to identify the most relevant predictors in return to work among individuals with a hand injury. OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare hand function characteristics and functional abilities of injured workers who have or have not returned to work. (2) To estimate hand function characteristics and functional abilities as predictors to return to work. METHODS: One hundred and fifteen adult workers with hand injuries aged 18– 59 years old from five general hospitals in Malaysia participated in a cross-sectional study. Predictors were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: There was a significant association between occupational sector (p = 0.012), injury duration (p = 0.024), occupational performance (p = 0.009) and satisfaction with performance (p <  0.001), grip strength of injured hand (p = 0.045– 0.002) and the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) disability/symptom (p = 0.001) with the person’s return to work status. Significant predictors of return to work were identified using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) satisfaction’s score, DASH disability/symptoms’ score and duration of the injury. CONCLUSION: As two main predictors of return to work were COPM satisfaction and DASH disability/symptoms, occupational therapists working in rehabilitation should focus on achieving functional performance and satisfaction within the optimal time.

Systematic Review of Biopsychosocial Prognostic Factors for Return to Work After Acute Orthopedic Trauma: A 2020 Update

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated evidence on prognostic factors for return to work (RTW) in the early and late phases after acute orthopedic trauma from a biopsychosocial perspective.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles indexed in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases between 2010 and 2020 was performed. The inclusion criteria were cohort studies of employed populations sustaining acute orthopedic trauma with follow-up data on RTW. Biopsychosocial prognostic factors for RTW must be reported in the multiple regression models and divided into early (≤ 6 months) and late phases (> 6 months) postinjury. Two reviewers performed study selection, assessed the risk of bias and quality using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and extracted data independently.

RESULTS

Thirty articles were included with a follow-up period of 1-58 months. Based on the QUIPS tool, 7 studies (23%) were considered to have a low risk of bias, and 21 studies (70%) were considered to have a moderate risk of bias. Based on the NOS, the quality was high in 87% of the included studies. The RTW rates ranged from 22% to 74% in the early phase and from 44% to 94% in the late phase. In the early phase, strong evidence was found for injury severity. In the late phase, strong evidence was found for age, injury severity, level of pain, self-efficacy, educational level, blue-collar work, and compensation status; moderate evidence was found for recovery expectations and physical workload. There was limited or inconsistent evidence for the other factors.

CONCLUSION

Based on the levels of evidence, injury severity should be considered as one of the key barriers to RTW in the early and late phases postinjury. This finding underlines the need for serious injury prevention efforts. Our results also emphasize the multifaceted actions of the biopsychosocial model to facilitate RTW: promoting policies for older injured workers, improving access to medical and rehabilitation facilities, and adapting physical workload. Multiple other factors are likely important but require additional high-quality studies to assess their role in the RTW process.

Detection of missed fractures of hand and forearm in whole-body CT in a blinded reassessment

BACKGROUND

We examined the visibility of fractures of hand and forearm in whole-body CT and its influence on delayed diagnosis. This study is based on a prior study on delayed diagnosis of fractures of hand and forearm in patients with suspected polytrauma.

METHODS

Two blinded radiologists examined CT-scans of patients with fractures of hand or forearm that were diagnosed later than 24 h after admission and control cases with unremarkable imaging of those areas. They were provided with clinical information that was documented in the admission report and were asked to examine forearm and hands. After unblinding, the visibility of fractures was determined. We examined if time of admission or slice thickness was a factor for late or missed diagnoses.

RESULTS

We included 72 known fractures in 36 cases. Of those 65 were visible. Sixteen visible fractures were diagnosed late during hospital stay. Eight more fractures were detected on revision by the radiologists. Both radiologists missed known fractures and found new fractures that were not reported by the other. Missed and late diagnoses of fractures occurred more often around 5 pm and 1 am. Slice thickness was not significantly different between fractures and cases with fractures found within 24 h and those found later.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of late diagnosis or completely missed fractures of the hand and forearm may be reduced by a repeated survey of WBCT with focus on the extremities in patients with suspected polytrauma who are not conscious.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.