PTOTSystematic ReviewThe South African journal of physiotherapy2025

Predictors of return to work among mine workers following on-duty injury: A scoping review.

Wilinda Botha, Nontembiso Magida, Witness Mudzi and 1 others

PMID 40612927

WHAT IT FOUND

Only 3 studies met criteria.

Among injured mine workers, slower return to work was linked to pain, longer rehabilitation, PTSD, job stress, and unsupportive supervisors; faster return to work was linked to income, sleep, job satisfaction, and workplace support.

Key findings

01889 records were obtained, and only 3 articles met the full eligibility criteria.

02Included studies reported barriers to return to work such as pain, muscular atrophy, long rehabilitation, PTSD, job stress, overcommitment, and supervisor or team conflict.

03Reported facilitators included shorter rehabilitation, combined physical and psychological support, higher income, supportive workplaces, and less job stress.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 3 studies met eligibility. The review cannot give a stable picture of return-to-work predictors in mine workers. The included studies varied in methods, samples and injury types. Their predictors cannot be compared directly. The evidence was predominantly male and focused on specific injury types. It may not apply to other injured workers. Methods listed many databases. The results say only 4 databases were searched. One included study described participants absent because of depression. The injury-specific mine-worker basis is not fully clear.

Declared interests

No specific grant funding was received. No other conflicts of interest are stated.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that shorter rehabilitation or supportive workplaces cause faster return to work. The review included only 3 heterogeneous studies and reported predictors, not tested effects.

Read it on PubMed →