4.3 Article

Outlining the Invisible: Experiences and Perspectives Regarding Concussion Recovery, Return-to-Work, and Resource Gaps

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19138204

Keywords

mild traumatic brain injury; adult; workers; concussion management; concussion recovery; workplace; occupational health

Funding

  1. British Columbia Centre for Disease Control

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research explores the barriers and facilitators to concussion recovery and return-to-work, as well as resource gaps. Through interviews and focus groups, the study reveals that treatment, social support, and workplace and lifestyle modifications are facilitating factors, while widespread education and training, standardized guidelines, attitude changes, mental health supports, and increased awareness are recommended to address barriers.
Appropriate supports and accommodations are necessary to ensure full concussion recovery and return-to-work (RTW). This research investigated barriers and facilitators to concussion recovery and RTW, and resource gaps reported by adults with concussion ('workers') and workplace and healthcare professionals ('workplaces'). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with workers (n = 31) and workplaces (n = 16) across British Columbia. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Facilitators to workers' concussion recovery and RTW included treatment, social support, and workplace and lifestyle modifications. To address barriers, both groups recommended: (a) widespread concussion and RTW education and training (b) standardized concussion recovery guidelines; (c) changing attitudes toward concussion; (d) mental health supports; and (e) increasing awareness that every concussion is unique. Findings can inform best practice for concussion recovery and RTW among professionals in workplaces, healthcare, occupational health and safety, and workers' compensation boards.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available