| Title |
Vocational rehabilitation for enhancing return‐to‐work in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010002.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wen‐Hsuan Hou, Ching‐Chi Chi, Heng‐Lien Lo, Yun‐Yun Chou, Ken N Kuo, Hung‐Yi Chuang |
| Abstract |
Traumatic upper limb injury is a leading cause of work-related disability. After return-to-work (RTW), many survivors of injuries are able to regain a quality of life (QoL) comparable with the normal population. Since RTW plays an important role in economic productivity and regaining health-related QoL, enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic limb injuries is the primary goal of rehabilitation. Vocational rehabilitation has been commonly employed in the field of occupational safety and health to increase the number of injured people returning to the labour market, prevent illness, increase well-being, and reduce disability. To assess the effects of vocational rehabilitation programmes for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2013. We updated our searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE (to 30 August 2017), EMBASE (to 3 September 2017), CINAHL (to 6 September 2017), and PsycINFO (to 6 September 2017), and we handsearched the references lists of relevant review articles. We aimed to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vocational rehabilitation with an alternative (control) intervention such as standard rehabilitation, a limited form of the vocational rehabilitation intervention (such as advice on RTW, referral information, or liaison with employer), or waiting-list controls. Two authors independently inspected abstracts, and we obtained full papers when necessary. When the two authors disagreed about the inclusion of a study, we resolved disagreements by discussion. A third author arbitrated when necessary. Our updated search identified 466 citations. Based on assessments of their titles and abstracts, we decided to evaluate the full texts of five records; however, none met our inclusion criteria. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support or refute the efficacy of vocational rehabilitation for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries. Since injured people in occupational settings frequently receive vocational rehabilitation with the aim of decreasing work disability, enhancing RTW, increasing productivity, and containing the welfare cost, further high-quality RCTs assessing the efficacy of vocational rehabilitation for workers with traumatic upper limb injury are needed to fill this gap in knowledge. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 6% |
| Brazil | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 241 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 10% |
| Researcher | 22 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 41 | 17% |
| Unknown | 79 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 6% |
| Psychology | 12 | 5% |
| Engineering | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 13% |
| Unknown | 90 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,424,894
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,943
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,123
of 446,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.