4.4 Article

Thoughts and feelings of future working life as a predictor of return to work: a combined qualitative and quantitative study of sick-listed persons with musculoskeletal disorders

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 33, 期 13-14, 页码 1262-1271

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2010.527029

关键词

Motivation; musculoskeletal disorders; optimism; return to work; sick leave

资金

  1. County Council of Halland
  2. Research and Development Unit, Primary Health Care, Halland, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. The main aim of this study was to describe the thoughts and feelings of future working life related to return to work (RTW) in sick-listed persons due to musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). Further aim was to compare these descriptions with the person's actual working situation 1, 5 and 10 years after a rehabilitation period. Methods. This study consisted of two parts. The first part had an explorative design, and qualitative content analysis was chosen in order to analyse the response to an open question regarding future working life answered before, persons sick-listed due to MSD (n = 320), took part in a rehabilitation programme 10 years ago. The second part had a prospective design and quantitative analysis was used to compare the results of the qualitative analysis with RTW and the working situation 1, 5 and 10 years after baseline. Results. Three categories emerged from the data with a total of nine subcategories. In the categories Motivation and optimism and Limitations to overcome, there were significantly more persons who had RTW 1 year after baseline when compared with the category Hindrance and hesitation. There were also some significant differences between the subcategories. Conclusions. The question, regarding thoughts and feelings of future working life, may be a simple screening method to predict RTW in persons sick-listed with MSD. This will guide the rehabilitation team to adjust the rehabilitation to each person's needs and facilitating RTW.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据