Effectiveness and Characteristics of Work Participation Interventions for Adults with Musculoskeletal Upper Limb Conditions: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1007/s10926-024-10251-6
Lisa Newington, Daniel Ceh, Fiona Sandford, Vaughan Parsons, Ira Madan
{"title":"Effectiveness and Characteristics of Work Participation Interventions for Adults with Musculoskeletal Upper Limb Conditions: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Lisa Newington, Daniel Ceh, Fiona Sandford, Vaughan Parsons, Ira Madan","doi":"10.1007/s10926-024-10251-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically identify and evaluate interventions to improve work participation for adults with upper limb musculoskeletal conditions, and explore contextual factors and mechanisms that suggest how the intervention is effective, for whom, and in what setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023433216). Eligible studies met the following criteria. Population adults (aged ≥ 18 years), with musculoskeletal upper limb conditions including traumatic and non-traumatic presentations. Intervention strategies aimed at enhancing work participation. Outcomes measures including return to work, increased work duties or hours, and work functioning. Study design randomised and non-randomised experimental studies, mixed methods, qualitative studies, and case series. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and completed quality appraisal. Interventions were described using TIDieR and the data presented as a narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two studies were included. Interventions were categorised into three groups: multimodal or multidisciplinary (n = 13), ergonomic (n = 4), and exercise (n = 5). Eight interventions were primarily delivered in the workplace and 14 in healthcare settings. Four outcome domains were reported: return to work (n = 18), self-reported work function (n = 4), work productivity (n = 5), and work-related costs (n = 2). Only exercise interventions showed consistent statistically significant benefits. Heterogeneity in outcomes prevented formal meta-analysis. Only five studies were rated as high quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to recommend specific work participation interventions for adults with upper limb musculoskeletal systems. No studies explored the impact of Fit Notes or other formal work guidance documentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10251-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically identify and evaluate interventions to improve work participation for adults with upper limb musculoskeletal conditions, and explore contextual factors and mechanisms that suggest how the intervention is effective, for whom, and in what setting.

Methods: The review protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023433216). Eligible studies met the following criteria. Population adults (aged ≥ 18 years), with musculoskeletal upper limb conditions including traumatic and non-traumatic presentations. Intervention strategies aimed at enhancing work participation. Outcomes measures including return to work, increased work duties or hours, and work functioning. Study design randomised and non-randomised experimental studies, mixed methods, qualitative studies, and case series. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and completed quality appraisal. Interventions were described using TIDieR and the data presented as a narrative synthesis.

Results: Twenty-two studies were included. Interventions were categorised into three groups: multimodal or multidisciplinary (n = 13), ergonomic (n = 4), and exercise (n = 5). Eight interventions were primarily delivered in the workplace and 14 in healthcare settings. Four outcome domains were reported: return to work (n = 18), self-reported work function (n = 4), work productivity (n = 5), and work-related costs (n = 2). Only exercise interventions showed consistent statistically significant benefits. Heterogeneity in outcomes prevented formal meta-analysis. Only five studies were rated as high quality.

Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend specific work participation interventions for adults with upper limb musculoskeletal systems. No studies explored the impact of Fit Notes or other formal work guidance documentation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人上肢肌肉骨骼疾病的工作参与干预的有效性和特征:一项系统综述。
目的:系统地识别和评估干预措施,以改善上肢肌肉骨骼疾病的成年人的工作参与,并探索背景因素和机制,表明干预措施如何有效,对谁有效,在什么环境下有效。方法:审查方案在PROSPERO (CRD42023433216)进行预注册。符合条件的研究符合以下标准。成年人(年龄≥18岁),上肢肌肉骨骼疾病,包括创伤性和非创伤性表现。旨在加强工作参与的干预战略。结果指标包括重返工作岗位、增加工作职责或工作时间以及工作功能。研究设计随机和非随机实验研究、混合方法、定性研究和病例系列。两名审稿人独立筛选、提取数据并完成质量评估。使用TIDieR描述干预措施,并以叙事综合的方式呈现数据。结果:纳入22项研究。干预措施分为三组:多模式或多学科(n = 13),人体工程学(n = 4)和运动(n = 5)。8项干预措施主要在工作场所实施,14项在卫生保健机构实施。报告了四个结果域:重返工作(n = 18),自我报告的工作功能(n = 4),工作效率(n = 5)和与工作相关的成本(n = 2)。只有运动干预在统计上显示出一致的显著益处。结果的异质性阻碍了正式的荟萃分析。只有5项研究被评为高质量。结论:没有足够的证据推荐对上肢肌肉骨骼系统的成年人进行具体的工作参与干预。没有研究探讨Fit Notes或其他正式工作指导文件的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review and Evaluation of the Tools Measuring Work-Related Psychosocial Factors in Prospective Research on Sickness Absence of Health Care Workers. Work Ability during the Return to Work Process: Results from a Mixed Methods Follow-Up Study Among Employees with Common Mental Disorders. Suffering of Common Mental Disorders but Still at Work: A Longitudinal Study During Periods of Differences in Regulations for Having Sick Leave. Improving Occupational Rehabilitation for People Living with Long COVID. Screening Young Adult Cancer Patients for Vocational Rehabilitation Services: A Vocational Rehabilitation Readiness Screening Tool.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1