Risk Markers for Not Returning to Work Among Patients with Acquired Brain Injury: A Population-Based Register Study.
Marie Matérne, Thomas Strandberg, Lars-Olov Lundqvist
PMID 30830502WHAT IT FOUND
One year after brain injury, women, people born outside Sweden, lower education, aphasia, long hospital stays, mobility or self-care problems, pain, anxiety/depression, and lower satisfaction with rehabilitation process or planning were at higher risk of not returning to work.
Key findings
01Among 2008 patients analysed, 690 returned to work at one year and 1318 did not.
02Being a woman, being born outside Sweden, having lower education, not having children at home, aphasia, longer hospital stay, needing help with motor or cognitive function, mobility problems, pain, anxiety/depression, self-care problems, and usual activity problems were associated with higher risk of not returning to work.
03Satisfaction with the rehabilitation process and with having influence over planning was associated with a higher likelihood of returning to work, but having a written rehabilitation plan was associated with a higher risk of not returning to work.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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.
What it does not show
The study used existing register data, and only 18% of the total cohort could be included. Many variables were optional for clinics to assess, so there was relatively large missing data. The study did not record the exact number of days between discharge and return to work, or the percentage of full-time work and when working hours increased. The register used fixed variables, which limited the rehabilitation-related questions that could be examined. The study was observational, so it cannot show that changing a risk marker will improve return to work. The written rehabilitation plan finding may reflect who needed a plan rather than the effect of the plan.
Declared interests
No funding or conflict-of-interest declaration appears in the supplied text. Journal metadata lists non-U.S. government research support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these risk markers as proof that changing them will improve return to work. This was an observational register study, not a trial, and the written rehabilitation plan finding may reflect who needed a plan rather than the plan itself.