Return to work

There were 20,249 records found after the initial search. After screening, 70 records remained to be evaluated in full-text. Of those 70, 58 records were excluded with reasons. This left 12 studies to be evaluated in the quantitative synthesis. Of the 10 studies that included measures of employment status, those that were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference when examined alone. When combined with Quasi Experimental Designs (QEDs) the weighted mean effect size for employment status was OR= 2.18, p=.002. Two studies measured number of hours worked, and showed no significant results, OR = 0.89, p =.67. Four RCTs measured sick leave and results were nonsignificant OR = 1.18, p =.39.

Minor differences in case dollar expenditures and service patterns were noted between the two groups. Vocational rehabilitation services that impacted successful work outcomes included: assistive technology services, basic support services and job placement services.

Thirty percent of the sample continued to work during treatment. There were no significant differences between cancer groups, type of treatment received or age groups. Flexibility with work arrangements, and disclosure were factors related to working during treatment. Working during treatment was also associated with difficulties managing fatigue. Forty two percent of the respondents returned to work following treatment. Factors related to return to work following treatment included: difficulties managing fatigue, managing the stress of cancer, managing physical changes associated with cancer, receiving advice from their doctor about work and return to work meeting with their employer.

The most consistent predictors and indicators of employment outcomes included premorbid occupational status, functional status at discharge, global cognitive functioning, perceptual functioning, executive functioning, involvement in vocational rehabilitation services and emotional status. The authors note that although the presence of specific characteristics may be a predictor for failure to return to work the absence of a factor does not guarantee return to work.
There is little evidence to support cognitive rehabilitation. The most successful programs target problems with motivation and emotional disturbance. Interventions to modify the social environment need to occur on multiple levels. A person's preferences for employment impact job retention. Supported employment has been described however, further evaluation of outcomes is needed. At a policy level a major barrier exists in the current service delivery system in which individuals do not have access to long term rehabilitation or specialized vocational support. Changes in public policy and funding could improve service delivery. Developing disability management programs may also assist those at risk for chronic unemployment post TBI.

Results indicated that the average rate of any employment after SCI was approximately 35%. The review of literature indicates that there are 11 factors associated with employability of individuals with SCI. This includes education, type of employment, severity of disability, age, time post injury, sex, marital status, social support, vocational counseling, medical problems associated with SCI, employer role, environment, and professional interests. Individuals with college backgrounds are more likely to return to work. Being younger at the time of injury is associated with the best employment outcomes. The probability of employment after SCI improves with increasing time since injury. Race is also associated with obtaining employment after SCI. Individuals who are white are more likely to be employment than those from minorities. Evidence-based supported employment seems to be the most applicable model for assisting individuals with SCI in restoring meaningful employment.

Of the patient files audited, 42% were placed in professional, managerial, office or administrative work, two were placed in a trade-qualified job, eight were placed in semi-skilled positions, and four were placed in unskilled labor. Of the clients who had jobs to return to (n=10) all returned to their previous role or a similar job following a graded return with professional/clerical jobs figuring highly (50%; n=5). Those clients who did not have a job to return to (n=17) were placed in similar roles to their pre-injury employment, with seven placed in a professional role, six placed in semi-skilled work and four placed in unskilled labor positions. Half were employed more than 13 weeks.

Fifty-seven percent of the PWW consumers were successfully closed compared to only 24% of the matched consumers who received traditional services. The proportion of successful closures for PWW versus unsuccessful closures was significantly greater for this group. PWW participants earned 204 dollars more a week and worked an average of 14 hours more than the other group. The cost of services for the PWW participants was 260 dollars more than the group who received traditional services.

A randomized controlled trial is comparing the combination of Individual Placement and Support and skills training with the Workplace
Fundamentals Module with the combination of brokered vocational rehabilitation and broad-based social skills training. Participants in the IPS condition have returned to school, competitive work, and combined school and work with approximately equal frequency.

Among the 24 occupational physicians interviewed, 22 considered the information provided in the letters as "helpful". Fifty percent indicated the information influenced their rehabilitation efforts. In particular, this group noted the information on diagnosis and treatment as particularly useful. The educational leaflet was rated on a scale of 1 to 10 as 7.3 with SD of 1.0. Patients were also interviewed after treatment. They gave the educational leaflet a mean score of 7.9 with SD of 0.6. Scores ranges for this group from 6.5 to 10. Not all who rated the advice as useful, acted upon it. Time from ending treatment to return to work ranged from 0 to 133 days. After 6 months 65% of the patients had returned to work. And by month 18,92% of the sample had returned to work.

For the majority of participant (N=5) the reason for returning to work was an essential part of their healing. All members of the group were aware of the ADA however, none had engaged in formal conversations with their employers about its provisions. Factors aiding in return to work included: job flexibility, coworker support,and health care provider support. Factors hindering return to work were: ignorance about cancer in the workplace, lack of emotional support, physical effects of cancer, and the impact of cancer on the person's priorities.