4.7 Article

Return to work after myocardial infarction/coronary artery bypass grafting: patients' and physicians' initial viewpoints and outcome 12 months later

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 9, 页码 1441-1450

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00250-1

关键词

return to work; myocardial infarction; CABG; cardiac rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonmedical factors play an important role in determining whether patients resume their work after myocardial infarction or CABG. The main questions dealt with in this study are: What is the respective basis of physicians' and patients' judgements as far as vocational disabilities are concerned, and what are the decisive factors that facilitate a prediction as to who will return to work and who will not? 132 male patients participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program served as subjects. The age group was limited to patients between 40 and 59 yr of age. The work situation 12 months following rehabilitation is known for 119 subjects; 74 had resumed their occupations. Results of regression analyses show that patients' and physicians' views on disabilities and re-employment are based on different factors. The physicians derive their estimates mainly from medical Variables (cardiac status and comorbidity), whereas the patients' views are based on the overall health status, their former job status, job satisfaction, and negative incentives for the return to work. Three variables were found that allow a prediction to be made as to re-employment in 85% of all cases: (1) age, (2) patients' feelings about the extent to which they are disabled by their cardiac problem, and (3) the physicians' views on the extent to which the patient is vocationally disabled by his overall medical situation. Medical variables (e.g. cardiac status) had little relevance to re-employment. The results are discussed with regard to the consequences for cardiac rehabilitation. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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