4.5 Article

Work factors associated with return to work in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 170-174

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.05.021

关键词

Out-of-hospital; Cardiac arrest; Return to work; Long-term outcome; Occupational; Work

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Although the survival rate after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has increased over time, little is known about the return to work of OHCA survivors. We aim to evaluate prevalence and factors associated with return to work (RTW) in OHCA survivors. Patients and methods: All consecutive OHCA survivors aged 18-65 years and discharged alive from a Paris tertiary intensive care unit between 2000 and 2013 were included. Pre-hospital care, in-hospital care, and afterhospital discharge data, such as work description (work location, job classification, nature of the job) were compared relative to work status and RTW. Factors associated with RTW were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: 153 OHCA survivors were included in the analysis. Among them, 96 (62.8%) returned to work an average of 714 days after OHCA (SD 1031); mostly to the same job (n = 72, 75%). Six patients changed jobs (4%) and 12 reduced their activity (10.6%). Factors associated with RTW were younger age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.64 [1.10; 12.02]), being managers and professionals, and service and sales workers (compared to technicians and associate professionals, clerical support workers, respectively aOR 3.43 [1.05; 11.22] and 4.69 [1.14; 19.37]), and workplace occurrence (aOR 11.72 [1.37; 99.93]). Conclusion: Two thirds of OHCA survivors, in the present study, returned to work. Patients with a higher-level job, and with the arrest occurring in the workplace, were more likely to return to work. Further research should include more details of job contents, evolution, financial consequences, as well as prevention practices related to work location.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据