Cited by 30Medical Practices and RehabilitationOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

Recovering from Traumatic Occupational Hand Injury Following Surgery: A Biopsychosocial Perspective

Roesler, Michelle Louise, Glendon, Aleck Ian, O’Callaghan, Frances Veronica·2013·Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

Abstract

Purpose Significant differences occur in the return-to-work (RTW) period amongst workers with an acute traumatic occupational hand injury. This study aimed to develop and test a comprehensive multivariate conceptual biopsychosocial model to predict RTW outcome.Method Patients presenting with an occupational hand injury were interviewed 7-10 days after their injury (N = 192) and again at 4 weeks after their injury (n = 150). Potential determinants from biomedical, work-related, demographic and psychosocial categories were studied simultaneously.Results A small sub-set of workers with an acute traumatic hand injury experienced chronic disability beyond 12 weeks. Analyzing the relationship between predictor variables and work absence resulted in the identification of the most important determinants of recovery. During the acute stages of recovery, injury severity, pain, self-efficacy, and living alone were the most important determinants of delayed RTW outcome. At 4 weeks post-injury, locus of control, injury severity, negative affect and living alone were the most important predictors of delayed RTW.Conclusion A number of prognostic variables were identified that influenced RTW outcome, which offer new and unique contributions to the field. Injury severity was not the most important determinant of RTW outcome; neither were factors identified in previous hand injury research, such as attribution of blame, significant predictors. Factors not examined in previous research, such as negative affect, were more important determinants of delayed RTW.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10926-013-9422-4

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roesler, M. L., Glendon, A. I., & O’Callaghan, F. V.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Glendon, Aleck Ian
Venue
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Published
2013-02-12
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
536-546
ISSN
  • 1053-0487 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3688
OpenAlex
W1989490404
Cited by
30
References
100
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
occupational hand injury, return to work, biopsychosocial model, predictors of recovery, chronic disability, injury severity, pain, self-efficacy, locus of control, negative affect, living alone, absenteeism, prognosis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Female, Hand Injuries, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Pain, Single Person, Time Factors, Trauma Severity Indices, Self Efficacy, Young Adult, Occupational Injuries, Return to Work

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