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
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信