Dataset Information

Return to work after critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Survivors of critical illness often experience poor outcomes after hospitalisation, including delayed return to work, which carries substantial economic consequences. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of return to work after critical illness. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library from 1970 to February 2018. Data were extracted, in duplicate, and random-effects meta-regression used to obtain pooled estimates. RESULTS:Fifty-two studies evaluated return to work in 10?015 previously employed survivors of critical illness, over a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6.25-38.5) months. By 1-3, 12 and 42-60?months' follow-up, pooled return to work prevalence (95% CI) was 36% (23% to 49%), 60% (50% to 69%) and 68% (51% to 85%), respectively (? 2=0.55, I2=87%, p=0.03). No significant difference was observed based on diagnosis (acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) vs non-ARDS) or region (Europe vs North America vs Australia/New Zealand), but was observed when comparing mode of employment evaluation (in-person vs telephone vs mail). Following return to work, 20%-36% of survivors experienced job loss, 17%-66%?occupation change and 5%-84% worsening employment status (eg, fewer work hours). Potential risk factors for delayed return to work include pre-existing comorbidities and post-hospital impairments (eg, mental health). CONCLUSION:Approximately two-thirds, two-fifths and one-third of previously employed intensive care unit survivors are jobless up to 3, 12 and 60 months following hospital discharge. Survivors returning to work often experience job loss, occupation change or worse employment status. Interventions should be designed and evaluated to reduce the burden of this common and important problem for survivors of critical illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42018093135.

SUBMITTER: Kamdar BB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7418481 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Return to work after critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kamdar Biren B BB Suri Rajat R Suchyta Mary R MR Digrande Kyle F KF Sherwood Kyla D KD Colantuoni Elizabeth E Dinglas Victor D VD Needham Dale M DM Hopkins Ramona O RO

Thorax 20191108 1

<h4>Background</h4>Survivors of critical illness often experience poor outcomes after hospitalisation, including delayed return to work, which carries substantial economic consequences.<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of return to work after critical illness.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library from 1970 to February 2018. Data were extracted, in duplicate, and random-effects meta-regression used to obtain pooled estim ...[more]

PMID: 31704795

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn addition to several sequelae of post-COVID-19, individuals also experience significant limitations in work ability, resulting in negative consequences for the return-to-work (RTW) process. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the impact of post-COVID-19 on work ability and RTW of individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.MethodsStudies on the work ability and RTW of patients with post-COVID-19 (more than 12 weeks after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection) were regarded eligible for inclusion. Systematic search of literature was performed up to March 2023 using five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and WHO COVID 19). Study selection followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement. A meta-analysis estimated the overall success rate of RTW. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).Results19 relevant studies, published between 2021 and 2023, were included in the systematic review, involving 21.155 patients from 14 different countries. The findings indicate that a significant proportion of individuals with post-COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms and functional impairments, with fatigue being the most prominent symptom. These persistent symptoms can have a considerable (negative) impact on individuals' physical and psychological capacity to participate in work-related activities, leading to lower work ability and increased absenteeism. The RTW for post-COVID-19 patients is complex, with approximately 60.9% of patients successfully returning to work after 12 or more weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among those who successfully returning to work, a considerable number need modifications in their work duties or hours to cope with residual impairments. Factors such as workplace accommodations, supportive policies, and occupational rehabilitation programs play a crucial role in facilitating successful RTW.ConclusionsThe systematic review underscores the substantial impact of post-COVID-19 on work-related outcomes. The implications of this research highlight the need for healthcare providers, employers, and policymakers to collaborate in creating inclusive work environments and implementing tailored rehabilitation programs to support individuals recovering from post-COVID-19. Further research should focus on long-term follow-up studies with mixed methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term consequences of post-COVID-19 on work ability and RTW outcomes.Prospero registration numberCRD42023385436.

Project description:Background and objectivesImpaired physical functioning is common and long lasting after an intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is a validated and widely used test of functional capacity. This systematic review synthesizes existing data in order to: (1) evaluate 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) in meters over longitudinal follow-up after critical illness, (2) compare 6MWD between acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) versus non-ARDS survivors, and (3) evaluate patient- and ICU-related factors associated with 6MWD.Data sourcesFive databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry) were searched to identify studies reporting 6MWT after hospital discharge in survivors from general (ie, nonspeciality) ICUs. The last search was run on February 14, 2018. Databases were accessed via Johns Hopkins University Library.Data extraction and synthesisPooled mean 6MWD were reported, with separate linear random effects models used to evaluate associations of 6MWD with ARDS status, and patient- and ICU-related variables. Twenty-six eligible articles on 16 unique participant groups were included. The pooled mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) 6MWD results at 3- and 12-months post discharge were 361 (321-401) and 436 (391-481) meters, respectively. There was a significant increase in 6MWD at 12 months compared to 3 months (P = .017). In ARDS versus non-ARDS survivors, the mean (95% CI) 6MWD difference over 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up was 73 [13-133] meters lower. Female sex and preexisting comorbidity also were significantly associated with lower 6MWD, with ICU-related variables having no consistent associations.ConclusionsCompared to initial assessment at 3 months, significant improvement in 6MWD was reported at 12 months. Female sex, preexisting comorbidity, and ARDS (vs non-ARDS) were associated with lower 6MWT results. Such factors warrant consideration in the design of clinical research studies and in the interpretation of patient status using the 6MWT.

Project description:BackgroundResearch recommends the development and evaluation of interventions to support women with breast cancer in returning to, or managing, work. Despite this, there has historically been a paucity of rehabilitation interventions to support women with breast cancer to maintain or return to their work role. The aim of this systematic review was to examine key characteristics of rehabilitation interventions, and their effectiveness on work outcomes for women with breast cancer, compared to usual care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of controlled studies of rehabilitation interventions with work outcomes for women with breast cancer. Six databases were systematically searched: EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Results are presented either as pooled odds ratio (OR) or pooled effect size (hedges g) between groups, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Narrative synthesis was conducted on intervention outcomes not suitable for meta-analysis.ResultsFive thousand, five hundred and thirty-five studies were identified. Nine out of 28 abstracts met inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes precluded meta-analysis for most outcomes. Of the interventions included in meta-analysis, no significant differences compared to usual care were found for sick leave (2 studies (12 months); OR 1.11 (95% CI: 0.66 to 1.87), number of sick days taken (2 studies (six months); difference in effect: - 0.08, (95% CI: - 0.48 to 0.38) or working hours (2 studies (12 months); 0.19, (95% CI: - 0.20 to 0.64). Only one study, with a multidisciplinary intervention, showed a significant difference for work outcomes when compared to usual care. Work-specific content featured in three interventions only, none of which provided conclusive evidence for improvement in work outcomes. Enhanced physical and psychological sequalae, and quality of life was observed in some studies.ConclusionThere remains a lack of effective and methodologically rigorous rehabilitation intervention studies for breast cancer survivors. The development and evaluation of effective rehabilitation interventions to support return to work is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundLong-term sick leave is a serious concern in developed countries and the cost of sickness absence and disability benefits cause major challenges for both the individual and society as a whole. Despite an increasing body of research reported by existing systematic reviews, there is uncertainty regarding the effect on return to work of workrelated interventions for workers with different diagnoses. The objective of this systematic review was to assess and summarize available research about the effects of work-related interventions for people on long-term sick leave and those at risk of long-term sick leave.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with international guidelines. Campbell Collaboration (Area: Social Welfare), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts were systematically searched in March 2021. Two authors independently screened the studies. We conducted risk of bias assessments and meta-analyses of the available evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The remaining comparisons were synthesized narratively. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was assessed.ResultsWe included 20 RCTs comprising 5753 participants at baseline from 4 different countries. The studies had generally low risk of bias. Our certainty in the effect estimates ranged from very low to moderate. Eight different interventions were identified. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MR) and usual care (US) (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.01; Confidence Interval [CI] 95% 0.70-1.48 at 12 months follow-up) and between MR and other active intervention (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.04; Confidence Interval [CI] 95% 0.86-1.25 at 12 months follow-up). Remaining intervention groups revealed marginal, or no effect compared to the control group. The results for the secondary outcomes (self-efficacy, symptom reduction, function, cost-effectiveness) showed varied and small effects in the intervention groups.ConclusionOverall, the present data showed no conclusive evidence of which work-related intervention is most effective for return to work. However, a handful of potential interventions exist, that may contribute to a foundation for future research. Our findings support the need for adequately powered and methodologically strong studies.

Dataset Information

Return to work after critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Return to work after critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets