↓ Skip to main content

A Prospective Cohort Study of the Impact of Return-to-Work Coordinators in Getting Injured Workers Back on the Job

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
A Prospective Cohort Study of the Impact of Return-to-Work Coordinators in Getting Injured Workers Back on the Job
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10926-017-9719-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tyler J. Lane, Rebbecca Lilley, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Anthony D. LaMontagne, Malcolm R. Sim, Peter M. Smith

Abstract

Purpose To assess the impact of workplace-based return-to-work (RTW) Coordinators' interpersonal and functional activities on RTW outcomes. Methods Multivariable logistic regression analyses of cross-sectional and longitudinal survey responses of 632 injured workers with at least 10 days of work absence in Victoria, Australia, adjusting for demographic and other workplace factors. Outcome was being back at work for at least 1 month, measured at both baseline and 6 month follow-up survey. Participant responses to stressfulness of Coordinator interactions were dichotomised into good and poor and evaluated as a proxy for Coordinators' interpersonal activities, while having a RTW plan was evaluated as a proxy for functional activities. Results At baseline, RTW plans doubled the odds of RTW (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.40-2.90) and attenuated the impact of good Coordinator interactions (1.14; 0.77-1.70). At 6-month follow-up, the opposite was observed: good interactions nearly doubled odds of RTW (1.90; 1.22-2.95) while RTW plans were non-significant (1.02; 0.68-1.54). Conclusions Differences between when the two Coordinator activities were effective may be due to the nature of claimants who RTW in each survey period. Length of shorter-duration claims are influenced by injury related factors, while psychosocial factors tend to be more important for longer-duration claims. Such factors may determine whether a claimant is more likely to respond to Coordinators' functional or interpersonal activities. The findings have important implications for increasing Coordinator effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Psychology 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 October 2019.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#579
of 616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,528
of 312,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 312,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.