4.6 Review

Return to work after young stroke: A systematic review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 243-256

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1747493017743059

Keywords

Stroke; young adults; return to work; activities of daily living; cognition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The incidence of stroke in young adults is increasing. While many young survivors are able to achieve a good physical recovery, subtle dysfunction in other domains, such as cognition, often persists, and could affect return to work. However, reported estimates of return to work and factors affecting vocational outcome post-stroke vary greatly. Aims The aims of this systematic review were to determine the frequency of return to work at different time points after stroke and identify predictors of return to work. Summary of review Two electronic databases (Medline and Embase) were systematically searched for articles according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 6473 records were screened, 68 were assessed for eligibility, and 29 met all inclusion criteria (working-age adults with stroke, return to work evaluated as an outcome, follow-up duration reported, and publication within the past 20 years). Return to work increased with time, with median frequency increasing from 41% between 0 and 6 months, 53% at 1 year, 56% at 1.5 years to 66% between 2 and 4 years post-stroke. Greater independence in activities of daily living, fewer neurological deficits, and better cognitive ability were the most common predictors of return to work. Conclusion This review highlights the need to examine return to work in relation to time from stroke and assess cognition in working age and young stroke survivors. The full range of factors affecting return to work has not yet been explored and further evaluations of return to work interventions are warranted.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available