The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Work disability is a major personal, financial and public health burden. Predicting future work success is a major focus of research. OBJECTIVES: To identify common prognostic factors for return-to-work across different health and injury conditions and to describe their association with return-to-work outcomes. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Cinahl, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the grey literature were searched from January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2013. Systematic reviews addressing return-to-work in various conditions and injuries were selected. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria to identify low risk of bias reviews. RESULTS: Of the 36,193 titles screened and the 94 eligible studies reviewed, 56 systematic reviews were accepted as low risk of bias. Over half of these focused on musculoskeletal disorders, which were primarily spine related (e.g., neck and low back pain). The other half of studies assessed workers with mental health or cardiovascular conditions, stroke, cancer, multiple sclerosis or other non-specified health conditions. Many factors have been assessed, but few consistently across conditions. Common factors associated with positive return-to-work outcomes were higher education and socioeconomic status, higher self-efficacy and optimistic expectations for recovery and return-to-work, lower severity of the injury/illness, return-to-work coordination, and multidisciplinary interventions that include the workplace and stakeholders. Common factors associated with negative return-to-work outcomes were older age, being female, higher pain or disability, depression, higher physical work demands, previous sick leave and unemployment, and activity limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Expectations of recovery and return-to-work, pain and disability levels, depression, workplace factors, and access to multidisciplinary resources are important modifiable factors in progressing return-to-work across health and injury conditions. Employers, healthcare providers and other stakeholders can use this information to facilitate return-to-work for injured/ill workers regardless of the specific injury or illness. Future studies should investigate novel interventions, and other factors that may be common across health conditions.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain
Hoffman, B. M., Papas, R. K., Chatkoff, D. K., & Kerns, R. D. (2007) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.1 · Cited by 844 · cited 1×
“[10, 11] The consequences studied in those exposed to sick leave include inactivity and isolation, suicide, decreased career opportunities, and decreased personal finances [12].”
Backgroundvan Middelkoop, M., Rubinstein, S. M., Kuijpers, T., Verhagen, A. P., Ostelo, R., Koes, B. W., & van Tulder, M. W. (2011) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1518-3 · Cited by 728
Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature
Franche, R.-L., Cullen, K., Clarke, J., Irvin, E., Sinclair, S., Frank, J., & The Institute for Work & Health (IWH) Workplace-Based RTW Intervention Literature Review Research Team (2005) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-005-8038-8 · Cited by 695
Steenstra, I. A., Verbeek, J. H., Heymans, M. W., & Bongers, P. M. (2005) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oem.2004.015842 · Cited by 495
Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age
Turner-Stokes, L., Pick, A., Nair, A., Disler, P. B., & Wade, D. T. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004170.pub3 · Cited by 493
Chapter 5. Risk factors for sick leave - general studies
Allebeck, P., & Mastekaasa, A. (2004) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1080/14034950410021853 · Cited by 462
Interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients
de Boer, A. G., Taskila, T. K., Tamminga, S. J., Feuerstein, M., Frings-Dresen, M. H., & Verbeek, J. H. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007569.pub3 · Cited by 428
North, F. M., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M. (1996) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.86.3.332 · Cited by 417
Systematic review of prognostic cohort studies on shoulder disorders
Kuijpers, T., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., & Bouter, L. M. (2004) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.02.017 · Cited by 334
Lagerveld, S. E., Bültmann, U., Franche, R. L., van Dijk, F. J. H., Vlasveld, M. C., van der Feltz-Cornelis, C. M., Bruinvels, D. J., Huijs, J. J. J. M., Blonk, R. W. B., van der Klink, J. J. L., et al. (2010) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-009-9224-x · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- Cancelliere, C., Donovan, J., Stochkendahl, M. J., Biscardi, M., Ammendolia, C., Myburgh, C., & Cassidy, J. D.
- Venue
- Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
- Published
- 2016-09-08
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32-32
- ISSN
- 1746-1340 (ISSN-L)
- 2045-709X
- OpenAlex
- W2484546033
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 64
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12998-016-0113-z
- The paper
- Cancelliere, C., Donovan, J., Stochkendahl, M. J., Biscardi, M., Ammendolia, C., Myburgh, C., & Cassidy, J. D. (2016). Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-016-0113-z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.