CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 475Medical Practices and RehabilitationOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesWorkplace Health and Well-being

Determinants of duration of disability and return‐to‐work after work‐related injury and illness: Challenges for future research

Open access
Krause, Niklas, Frank, John W., Dasinger, Lisa K., Sullivan, Terry J., Sinclair, Sandra J.·2001·American Journal of Industrial Medicine
DOI 10.1002/ajim.1116
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this review was to identify critical data and research needs in addressing the following question: What are the primary factors that affect the time lost from work, return‐to‐work (RTW), subsequent unemployment, and changes in occupation after disabling illness or injury? Methods: Review of the literature to identify research challenges originating from the multitude of disciplines, data sources, outcome measures, and methodological and analytical problems. Results: About 100 different determinants of RTW outcomes were identified. Their impact varies across different phases of the disablement process. Recommendations are provided for addressing five selected research challenges. Conclusion: Interdisciplinary research needs to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework. Priority should be given to studies on specific domains of risk factors meeting five selection criteria: amenability to change; relevance to users of research; generalizability across health conditions, disability phases, and settings; “degree of promise” as derived from qualitative exploratory studies; and capacity to improve measurement instruments. Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods is necessary to bridge existing knowledge gaps. Am. J. Ind. Med. 40:464–484, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajim.1116

Cites

150 of 150 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson SA. 1996. Measuring health in injured workers: a cross-sectional comparison of ®ve generic health status instruments in workers with musculoskeletal injuries. Am J Ind Med 29(6):618±631.
  2. Cole DC, Hudak PL. 1996. Prognosis of nonspeci®c work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper extremity. Am J Ind Med 29(6):657±668.
  3. Crook J, Moldofsky H, Shannon H. 1998. Determinants of disability after a work related musculetal injury [see comments]. J Rheumat 25(8):1570±1577.
  4. Dasinger LK, Krause N, Deegan LJ, Brand RJ, Rudolph L. 1999. Duration of work disability after low back injury: a comparison of administrative and self-reported outcomes. Am J Ind Med 35(6):619± 631.
  5. Dasinger LK, Krause N, Thompson PJ, Brand RJ, Rudolph L. 2001. Doctor proactive communications, return to work recommendation, and duration of disability after a compensated low back injury. J Occup Environ Health 43(6):515±525.
  6. Galizzi M, Boden LI. 1996. What are the most important factors shaping return to work? Evidence from Wisconsin. Cambridge, MA, Workers' Compensation Research Institute.
  7. Gardner J. 1989. Return to work incentives: Lessons for policymakers from economic studies. Cambridge, MA, Workers' Compensation Research Institute.
  8. Karoff M, Roseler S, Lorenz C, Kittel J. 2000. [Intensi®ed after-care±a method for improving occupational reintegration after myocardial infarct and/or bypass operation]. Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie 89(5):423±433.
  9. Katz JN, Keller RB, Fossel AH, Punnett L, Bessette L, Simmons BP, Mooney N. 1997. Predictors of return to work following carpal tunnel release [see comments]. Amer J Ind Med 31(1):85±91.
  10. Krause N, Dasinger L, Wiegand A. 1997a. Does modi®ed work facilitate return to work for temporarily or permanently disabled workers? Review of the literature and annotated bibliography. Report prepared for the Industrial Medical Council of the State of California and the California Comission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation. Berkeley, University of California, 164 p.
  11. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Deegan LJ, Brand RJ, Rudolph L. 1999. Alternative approaches for measuring duration of work disability after low back injury based on administrative workers' compensation data. Am J Ind Med 35(6):604±618.
  12. Krause N, Ragland D, Fisher J, Syme S. 1998b. Psychosocial job factors, physical workload, and incidence of work-related spinal injury: a 5-year prospective study of urban transit operators. Spine 23(23):2507±2516.
  13. McIntosh G, Frank J, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C, Hall H. 2000. Prognostic factors for time on workers' compensation bene®ts in a cohort of low back patients. Spine 25(2):147±157.
  14. Meyer BD, Viscusi WK, Durbin DL. 1995. Workers' Compensation and Injury Duration. Am Economic Rev 85(3):322±340.
  15. Oleinick A, Gluck JV, Guire K. 1996. Factors affecting ®rst return to work following a compensable occupational back injury. Am J Ind Med 30(5):540±555.
  16. Rael EGS. 1992. An epidemiological study of the incidence and duration of compensated lost time injury for construction workmen, Ontario, 1998: an assessment and application of workers' compensa- tion board and labor force data. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
  17. Reville RT. 1999. The impact of a permanently disabling workplace injury on labor force participation and earnings. The creation and analysis of linked employer-employee data. Amsterdam, London, and New York: Elsevier Science, p 147±174.
  18. Sinclair S, Burton JF Jr. 1994. Measuring non-economic loss: quality-of-life values versus impairment. Workers' Compensation Monitor 7(4):1±17.
  19. Sinclair SJ, Sullivan TJ, Clarke JA, Frank JW. 1998. A framework for examining return to work in workers' compensation: a view from one North American jurisdiction. International examinations of medical- legal aspects of work injuries. Lanham, Maryland, and London: The Scarecrow Press Inc, 262±300 p.
  20. Worrall JD, Butler RJ. 1985. Bene®ts and claim duration. Workers' compensation bene®ts: adequacy, equity, and ef®ciency. New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 57±70 p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Krause, N., Frank, J. W., Dasinger, L. K., Sullivan, T. J., & Sinclair, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Institute for Work & Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Krause, Niklas
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-09-25
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
464-484
ISSN
  • 0271-3586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0274
DOI
10.1002/ajim.1116
OpenAlex
W2167770728
Cited by
475
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 30
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • American Journal of Industrial Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • Connaught Fund
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • U.S. Public Health Service (R01/CCR9211)
  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
return to work, occupational injuries, occupational diseases, disability duration, unemployment, career change, lost workdays, risk factors, research priorities, measurement instruments, conceptual framework
MeSH terms
Accidents, Occupational, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Forecasting, Humans, Job Description, Occupational Diseases, Regression Analysis, Research, Research Design, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Sick Leave, Insurance, Disability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review