scholarly journals Employment Interventions for Return to Work in Working Aged Adults Following Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn W. Graham ◽  
Michael D. West ◽  
Jessica L. Bourdon ◽  
Katherine J. Inge ◽  
Hannah E. Seward
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e041581
Author(s):  
Reema Shafi ◽  
Angela Colantonio

IntroductionReturning to work and sustaining employment can be a significant challenge for traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors. Within the literature, there is recurring support for the role of workplace accommodations in effective and early return-to-work (RTW). To date, however, there has been a lack of systematic reviews exploring the specific role of workplace accommodations within the context of RTW after TBI. The primary objective of this protocol is to outline the methodological approach that will be undertaken to systematically review the literature and to assess the effectiveness of workplace accommodations in facilitating RTW.Methods and analysisA total of nine databases will be searched systematically using the concepts ‘Brain injury,’ ‘RTW’ and ‘Job Accommodations.’ Study selection will be performed independently by three reviewers, based on predetermined eligibility criteria through two rounds of screening using, first, the title and abstract, followed by a full-text search. Extracted information will include the study’s purpose, design, and setting; the data source and type; the severity of TBI and the diagnostic criterion used; a comprehensive description of the intervention provided; the RTW outcome variables and the statistical methods used, etc. The data will be tabulated and narratively synthesised. Systematic review registration: This protocol has been registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.Ethics and disseminationAs this review intends to use pre-existing published studies hence research ethics board approvals will not be required. Nevertheless, this review will follow the ethical and governance standards in the data management and presentation of results. The findings from this review will potentially be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (electronically and in print). The results of this review will be presented at both national/international conferences and shared with stakeholders influencing RTW practices.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016043517.


Brain Injury ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (13-14) ◽  
pp. 1623-1636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Bloom ◽  
Stephen Thomas ◽  
Jette Møller Ahrensberg ◽  
Rachel Weaver ◽  
Alex Fowler ◽  
...  

Brain Injury ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (13-14) ◽  
pp. 1516-1527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhail Saltychev ◽  
Merja Eskola ◽  
Olli Tenovuo ◽  
Katri Laimi

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Nightingale ◽  
Cheryl A. Soo ◽  
Robyn L. Tate

AbstractThis article presents a systematic review identifying variables and their prognostic value for return to work (RTW) after traumatic brain injury (TBI). RTW has been identified as being a key goal following TBI, with estimates ranging from 10% to 70%. Prediction of postinjury employment is important for planning rehabilitation and structuring individualised vocational services. Studies examining prognostic factors were identified by searching four electronic databases, until June 2006. Searches yielded 1948 studies of which 55 met inclusion criteria and were subsequently rated for methodological quality. Mean methodological score for included studies was 3.9/6 (SD 0.9, range 1–6). Analysis focused on a subset of 27 studies which provided sampling from all three domains of preinjury, injury and early postinjury variables. Few studies considered preinjury variables, apart from simple demographics. Only five studies considered preinjury employment, which was a significant predictor in each case. Severity of injury variables were invariably examined, but were significant predictors in only 8/27 studies (30%). For early postinjury variables, 14/27 studies entered cognitive variables with 12/14 (86%) identifying them as significant predictors; 3/27 studies examined neurophysical variables, with 2/3 (67%) studies finding them significant; and 12/27 studies examined multidimensional/participation variables which were statistically significant individual predictors in 8/12 (67%) cases. The results are discussed in the context of methodological issues encountered during the course of the review that require addressing in future studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document