Dataset Information

Assessing the effectiveness of workplace accommodations in facilitating return to work after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Returning to work and sustaining employment can be a significant challenge for traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors. Within the literature, there is recurring support for the role of workplace accommodations in effective and early return-to-work (RTW). To date, however, there has been a lack of systematic reviews exploring the specific role of workplace accommodations within the context of RTW after TBI. The primary objective of this protocol is to outline the methodological approach that will be undertaken to systematically review the literature and to assess the effectiveness of workplace accommodations in facilitating RTW.

Methods and analysis

A total of nine databases will be searched systematically using the concepts 'Brain injury,' 'RTW' and 'Job Accommodations.' Study selection will be performed independently by three reviewers, based on predetermined eligibility criteria through two rounds of screening using, first, the title and abstract, followed by a full-text search. Extracted information will include the study's purpose, design, and setting; the data source and type; the severity of TBI and the diagnostic criterion used; a comprehensive description of the intervention provided; the RTW outcome variables and the statistical methods used, etc. The data will be tabulated and narratively synthesised. Systematic review registration: This protocol has been registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Ethics and dissemination

As this review intends to use pre-existing published studies hence research ethics board approvals will not be required. Nevertheless, this review will follow the ethical and governance standards in the data management and presentation of results. The findings from this review will potentially be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (electronically and in print). The results of this review will be presented at both national/international conferences and shared with stakeholders influencing RTW practices.

Prospero registration number

CRD42016043517.

SUBMITTER: Shafi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Determining readiness for duty after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is essential for the safety of service members and their unit. Currently, these decisions are primarily based on self-reported symptoms, objective measures that assess a single system, or standardized physical or cognitive tests that may be insensitive or lack ecological validity for warrior tasks. While significant technological advancements have been made in a variety of assessments of these individual systems, assessments of isolated tasks are neither diagnostically accurate nor representative of the demands imposed by daily life and military activities. Emerging evidence suggests that complex tasks, such as dual-task paradigms or turning, have utility in probing functional deficits after mTBI. Objective measures from turning tasks in single- or dual-task conditions, therefore, may be highly valuable for clinical assessments and return-to-duty decisions after mTBI. The goals of this study are to assess the diagnostic accuracy, predictive capacity, and responsiveness to rehabilitation of objective, dual-task turning measures within an mTBI population. These goals will be accomplished over two phases. Phase 1 will enroll civilians at three sites and active-duty service members at one site to examine the diagnostic accuracy and predictive capacity of dual-task turning outcomes. Phase 1 participants will complete a series of turning tasks while wearing inertial sensors and a battery of clinical questionnaires, neurocognitive testing, and standard clinical assessments of function. Phase 2 will enroll active-duty service members referred for rehabilitation from two military medical treatment facilities to investigate the responsiveness to rehabilitation of objective dual-task turning measures. Phase 2 participants will complete two assessments of turning while wearing inertial sensors: a baseline assessment prior to the first rehabilitation session and a post-rehabilitation assessment after the physical therapist determines the participant has completed his/her rehabilitation course. A variable selection procedure will then be implemented to determine the best task and outcome measure for return-to-duty decisions based on diagnostic accuracy, predictive capacity, and responsiveness to rehabilitation. Overall, the results of this study will provide guidance and potential new tools for clinical decisions in individuals with mTBI. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT03892291.

Project description:Purpose The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of workplace-based return-to-work (RTW) interventions and work disability management (DM) interventions that assist workers with musculoskeletal (MSK) and pain-related conditions and mental health (MH) conditions with RTW. Methods We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis that ranked evidence as strong, moderate, limited, or insufficient. Results Seven electronic databases were searched from January 1990 until April 2015, yielding 8898 non-duplicate references. Evidence from 36 medium and high quality studies were synthesized on 12 different intervention categories across three broad domains: health-focused, service coordination, and work modification interventions. There was strong evidence that duration away from work from both MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions were significantly reduced by multi-domain interventions encompassing at least two of the three domains. There was moderate evidence that these multi-domain interventions had a positive impact on cost outcomes. There was strong evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy interventions that do not also include workplace modifications or service coordination components are not effective in helping workers with MH conditions in RTW. Evidence for the effectiveness of other single-domain interventions was mixed, with some studies reporting positive effects and others reporting no effects on lost time and work functioning. Conclusions While there is substantial research literature focused on RTW, there are only a small number of quality workplace-based RTW intervention studies that involve workers with MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions. We recommend implementing multi-domain interventions (i.e. with healthcare provision, service coordination, and work accommodation components) to help reduce lost time for MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions. Practitioners should also consider implementing these programs to help improve work functioning and reduce costs associated with work disability.

Project description:BackgroundOccupational accidents may lead laborers to lose their working capacities, affecting their physical and mental health. Occupational rehabilitation helps improve the ability of patients with occupational accidents and suggests appropriate jobs to avoid second injuries. This study aimed to identify whether any of the functional capacity evaluation (FCE) strength subtests predicted successful return to work.MethodsData were collected of 84 patients receiving government-subsidized occupational rehabilitation between September 2016 and December 2018. A structured questionnaire was employed for pre- and post-training assessment, including basic information, information of the occupational accident, status of the laborer at the opening of the injury case, physical requirement for the job, and physical capacity. Eight subtests of strength were included in the physical capacity evaluation, i.e., carrying, lifting to several levels, power grip, and lateral pinch, to explore the association between the strength tests and return to work.ResultsThe unadjusted model showed that for every additional kilogram in bilateral carrying strength before work hardening training, the odds of successful return to work increased (crude odds ratio [OR] = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01-1.24, p = 0.027). After adjustment for basic demographic information and pre-accident physical functional elements of work, the odds of successful return to work increased (adjusted OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04-1.54, p = 0.02) for every additional kilogram in the pre-training bilateral carrying strength. There were no statistically significant differences observed in the other seven subtests.ConclusionThrough thorough evaluation and work hardening training provided in the occupational rehabilitation, patients' physical capacity can be understood and improved. However, a full evaluation of functional capacities is prolonged and time-consuming. This study provides evidence that pre-work-hardening bilateral carrying strength may be a promising predictor of return to work and we recommend to consider it as a prioritized test to assist in determining appropriate advice regarding return to work.

Project description:Return to work (RTW) is an important milestone of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) recovery. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether baseline clinical variables, three-month RTW, and three-month postconcussional symptoms (PCS) were associated with six-month RTW after mTBI. Adult subjects from the prospective multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Pilot study with mTBI (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15) who were employed at baseline, with completed three-and six-month RTW status, and three-month Acute Concussion Evaluation (ACE), were extracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed for six-month RTW, with focus on baseline employment, three-month RTW, and three-month ACE domains (physical, cognitive, sleep, and/or emotional postconcussional symptoms (PCS)). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were reported. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05. In 152 patients aged 40.7 ± 15.0years, 72% were employed full-time at baseline. Three- and six-month RTW were 77.6% and 78.9%, respectively. At three months, 59.2%, 47.4%, 46.1% and 31.6% scored positive for ACE physical, cognitive, sleep, and emotional PCS domains, respectively. Three-month RTW predicted six-month RTW (OR = 19.80, 95% CI [7.61-51.52]). On univariate analysis, scoring positive in any three-month ACE domain predicted inability for six-month RTW (OR = 0.10-0.11). On multivariable analysis, emotional symptoms predicted inability to six-month RTW (OR = 0.19 [0.04-0.85]). Subjects who scored positive in all four ACE domains were more likely to be unable to RTW at six months (4 domains: 58.3%, vs. 0-to-3 domains: 9.5%; multivariable OR = 0.09 [0.02-0.33]). Three-month post-injury is an important time point at which RTW status and PCS should be assessed, as both are prognostic markers for six-month RTW. Clinicians should be particularly vigilant of patients who present with emotional symptoms, and patients with symptoms across multiple PCS categories, as these patients are at further risk of inability to RTW and may benefit from targeted evaluation and support.

Project description:Aims: Knowledge regarding the most effective return to work (RTW) approaches after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is lacking. This trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of a combined cognitive and vocational intervention to treatment as usual (TAU) on RTW and work stability after TBI. Methods: We performed a parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) at a TBI outpatient clinic at Oslo University Hospital (OUH), Norway. Patients with a history of mild-to-moderate TBI (n = 116) aged 18-60 were randomized (1:1) by an independent investigator to receive group-based compensatory cognitive training (CCT) and supported employment (SE) (n = 60) or TAU consisting of individualized multidisciplinary treatment (n = 56). Participants were enrolled 2-3 months post-injury. The nature of the intervention prevented blinding of patients and therapists, however, outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome measure was RTW at 3 and 6 months following study inclusion. Secondary outcomes were work percentage, stability, and productivity. The present study provides results from an interim analysis from the first two planned follow ups, while subsequent publications will present results up to 12 months following study inclusion. Results: Mixed effects models showed no between-group differences in the RTW proportion, work percentage, and hours worked between CCT-SE and TAU from baseline to 6 months. A significantly higher proportion of participants in CCT-SE had returned to work at 3 months when adjusting for baseline differences. The majority of participants who were employed at 3 and 6 months were stably employed. There was a statistically significant within-group improvement on RTW proportion, hours worked and work percentage in both groups. Conclusion: The results revealed no difference between CCT-SE and TAU on work-related outcomes from baseline to 6 months. However, there was a higher RTW proportion in the CCT-SE group compared to TAU at 3 months. Future publications will assess the effectiveness of CCT-SE vs. TAU up to 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration: US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier #NCT03092713.