4.0 Article

Outcomes of return-to-work after stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
Volume 79, Issue 5, Pages 299-308

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0308022615624710

Keywords

Systematic review; stroke rehabilitation; return-to-work; employment rate

Categories

Funding

  1. General Research Fund, Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee, Hong Kong SAR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the outcomes of return-to-work for stroke survivors of working age after conventional stroke rehabilitation or vocational rehabilitation. Method: Searches were performed using three electronic databases for literature published in English in the 10-year period 2004-2014 which included a population of working age stroke survivors who had previously participated in conventional or vocational rehabilitation, and which presented the outcomes of return-to-work. Findings: The literature search yielded 10 studies that satisfied our selection criteria. Three studies involved vocational rehabilitation. Studies illustrated and compared the vocational status at or among different stages of 'pre-stroke', 'post-stroke and before rehabilitation discharge', 'rehabilitation discharge' and 'follow-up'. The employment rate at follow-up ranged from 7% to 81.1%. Conclusion: Methodological variations accounted for the wide range of return-to-work rates. There was limited evidence to support the conclusion that rehabilitation increases return-to-work rates for stroke survivors of working age, but recent studies showed that improvements in fatigue and cognitive function after stroke rehabilitation were related to good return-to-work outcomes. Either specialised vocational rehabilitation, conventional stroke rehabilitation or their combination is needed to increase return-to-work rates and improve the quality of life for stroke survivors of working age.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available