4.5 Article

DETERMINANTS OF RETURN TO WORK FOLLOWING NON-LIFE-THREATENING ACUTE ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

Journal

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 162-169

Publisher

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0495

Keywords

orthopaedic; Injury Severity Score; return to work; bio-psychosocial; outcome; acute trauma; injury

Funding

  1. Transport Accident Commission
  2. Monash University
  3. NHMRC
  4. VIC-Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine factors associated with return to work following acute non-life-threatening orthopaedic trauma. Design: Prospective cohort study. Participants: One hundred and sixty-eight participants were recruited and followed for 6 months. The study achieved 89% participant follow-up. Methods: Baseline data were obtained by survey and medical record review. Participants were further surveyed at 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months post-injury. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between potential predictors and first return to work by these 3 time-points. Results: Sixty-eight percent of participants returned to work within 6 months. Those who sustained isolated upper extremity injuries were more likely to return to work early. Significant positive determinants of return to work included a strong belief in recovery, the presence of an isolated injury, education to university level and self-employment. Determinants associated with non-return to work included the receipt of compensation, older age, pain attitudes and blue-collar work. The primary reason given for return to work was financial security. Conclusion: Demographic, injury, occupation and psychosocial factors were significant predictors of return to work. The relative importance of factors at different time-points suggests that return to work is a multifactorial process that involves the complex interaction of many factors in a time-dependent manner.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available