Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 113–139 | Cite as

Modified Work and Return to Work: A Review of the Literature

  • Niklas Krause
  • Lisa K. Dasinger
  • Frank Neuhauser

Abstract

Workplace injuries which result in lost time from work can have considerable financial repercussions for employer and employee alike, not to mention their physical and emotional impact on the employee. In order to lessen workers' compensation costs and facilitate the rehabilitation process, some employers offer modified work to their injured employees in order to allow an earlier return to work than would ordinarily be possible. Although modified work is regarded by many as a cornerstone in the job rehabilitation process, little is known about the structure, effectiveness, and efficiency of such programs. This report is a systematic review of the scientific literature on modified work published since 1975. Its objective is to synthesize and critically appraise the research on modified work, and, specifically, to assess the effectiveness of modified work programs. Using a systematic keyword search in three online libraries, 29 empirical studies of modified work programs were selected for review. The studies were evaluated for methodological quality, from which 13 higher quality studies were identified. On the basis of these 13 studies, the effectiveness of modified work programs was evaluated. The main finding of this review is that modified work programs facilitate return to work for temporarily and permanently disabled workers. Injured workers who are offered modified work return to work about twice as often as those who are not. Similarly, modified work programs cut the number of lost work days in half. The available evidence also suggests that modified work programs are cost-effective. Comprehensive cost-benefit analyses are needed to confirm this finding.

disability rehabilitation reemployment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Krause N, Ragland DR. Occupational disability due to low back pain: A new interdisciplinary classification based on a phase model of disability. Spine 1994; 19(9):1011-1020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DRJ. Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 1. Acute interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1995; 76(10): 966-973.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Snook SH, Webster BS. The cost of disability. Clin Orthop 1987; 221: 77-84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Snook SH. The costs of back pain in industry. Occup Med 1988; 3(1): 1-5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev 1987; 9: 1-30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thacker SB. Meta-analysis. A quantitative approach to research integration. JAMA 1988; 259(11): 1685-1689.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oxman A, Cook D, Guyatt G. Users' guide to the medical literature: VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994; 272(17): 1367-1371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loisel P, Durand P, Gosselin L, Simard R, Turcotte J. La Clinique des Maus de Dos. Un Modèle de Prise en Charge, en Prévention de la Chronicité. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, 1996, May 1996 [A shortened English version was published in December 1997: Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, Esdaile JM, Suissa S, Gosselin L, Simard R, Turcotte J, Lemaire J. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine 1997; 22 (24): 2911–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krause N, Dasinger L, Wiegand A. Does Modified Work Facilitate Return to Work for Temporarily or Permanently Disabled Workers? Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography. Unpublished report prepared for the Industrial Medical Council of the State of California and the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation, University of California, August 20, 1997. 164 pp.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kristensen TS. Cardiovascular diseases and the work environment. A critical review of the epidemiologic literature on chemical factors [see comments]. Scand J Work Environ Health 1989; 15(4): 245-264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butler RJ, Johnson WG, Baldwin ML. Managing work disability: Why first return to work is not a measure of success. Indust Labor Relat Rev 1995; 48(3): 452-469.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cats-Baril WL, Frymoyer JW. Identifying patients at risk of becoming disabled because of low-back pain. The Vermont Rehabilitation Engineering Center predictive model. Spine 1991; 16(6): 605-607.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheadle A, Franklin G, Wolfhagen C, Savarino J, Liu PY, Salley C, Weaver M. Factors influencing the duration of work-related disability: A populatíon-based study of Washington State workers' compensation. Am J Public Health 1994; 84(2): 190-196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rabin SI, Post M. A comparative study of clinical muscle testing and Cybex evaluation after shoulder operations. Clin Orthop 1990; 258: 147-156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rossignol M, Suissa S, Abenhaim L. Working disability due to occupational back pain: Three year follow up of 2,300 compensated workers in Quebec. J Occup Med 1988; 30(6): 502-505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beals RK, Hickman NW. Industrial injuries of the back and extremities. Comprehensive evaluation-an aid in prognosis and management: A study of one hundred and eighty patients. J Bone Joint Surg 1972; 54(8): 1593-1611.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cairns D, Mooney V, Crane P. Spinal pain rehabilitation: Inpatient and outpatient treatment results and development of predictors for outcome. Spine 1984; 9(1): 91-95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barnes D, Smith D, Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Psychosocioeconomic predictors of treatment success/failure in chronic low-back pain patients. Spine 1989; 14(4): 427-430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feuerstein M, Menz L, Zastowny T, Barron B. Chronic back pain and work disability: Vocational outcomes following multidisciplinary rehabilitation. J Occup Rehab 1994; 4(4): 229-251.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Polatin PB, Gatchel RJ, Barnes D, Mayer H, Arens C, Mayer TG. A psychosociomedical prediction model of response to treatment by chronically disabled workers with low-back pain. Spine 1989; 14(9): 956-961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lanier DC, Stockton P. Clinical predictors of outcome of acute episodes of low back pain. J Fam Pract 1988; 27(5): 483-489.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sandstrom J. Clinical and social factors in rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain. Scand J Rehab Med 1986; 18(1): 35-43.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Last JM. A dictionary of epidemiology (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glass G. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976; 5(Nov. 1976): 3-8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flor H, Fydrich T, Turk DC. Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: A metaanalytic review. Pain 1992; 49(2): 221-230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mintz J. Integrating research evidence: A commentary on meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983; 51(1): 71-75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32(1-2): 51-63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baldwin ML, Johnson WG, Butler RJ. The error of using returns-to-work to measure the outcomes of health care. Am J Ind Med 1996; 29(6): 632-641.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fitzler SL, Berger RA. Attitudinal change: The Chelsea back program. Occup Health Safety 1982; 51(2): 24-26.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fitzler SL, Berger RA. Chelsea back program: One year later. Occup Health Safety 1983; 52(7): 52-54.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gice JH, Thomkins K. Cutting costs with return to work programs. Risk Mgmt 1988; 35(4): 62-65.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hall H, McIntosh G, Melles T, Holowachuk B, Wai E. Effect of discharge recommendations on outcome. Spine 1994; 19(18): 2033-2037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson R. Return to work after severe head injury. Int Disab Stud 1987; 9(2): 49-54.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lancourt J, Kettelhut M. Predicting return to work for lower back pain patients receiving worker's compensation. Spine 1992; 17(6): 629-640.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmidt SH, Oort-Marburger D, Meijman TF. Employment after rehabilitation for musculoskeletal impairments: The impact of vocational rehabilitation and working on a trial basis. Arch Phys Rehab 1995; 76(10): 950-954.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    West MD. Aspects of the workplace and return to work for persons with brain injury in supported employment. Brain Inj 1995; 9(3): 301-313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wiesel SW, Boden SD, Feffer HL. A quality-based protocol for management of musculoskeletal injuries. A ten-year prospective outcome study. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1994; 301: 164-176.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yassi A, Tate R, Cooper JE, Snow C, Vallentyne S, Khokhar JB. Early intervention for back-injured nurses at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital: An evaluation of the effectiveness and cost benefits of a two-year pilot project. Occup Med (Oxf) 1995; 45(4): 209-214.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hennessey JC, Muller LS. Work efforts of disabled-worker beneficiaries: preliminary findings from the new beneficiary followup survey. Soc. Sec. Bull. 1994; 57(3): 42-51.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hennessey JC, Muller LS. The effect of vocational rehabilitation and work incentives on helping the disabled-worker beneficiary back to work. Soc Sec Bull 1995; 58(1): 15-28.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams JR. Employee experiences with early return to work programs. AAOHN J 1991; 39(2): 64-69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cook M. Modified work program aids injured workers, saves $343,000 in four years. Hosp Emp Health 1986; 5: 100-102.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gice JH, Tompkins K: Return to work program in a hospital setting. J Bus Psychol 1989; 4(2): 237-243.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haig AJ, Linton P, McIntosh M, Moneta L, Mead PB. Aggressive early medical management by a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation: Effect on lost time due to injuries in hospital employees [see comments]. J Occup Med 1990; 32(3): 241-244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Randolph SA, Dalton PC. Limited duty work: An innovative approach to early return to work. AAOHN J 1989; 37(11): 446-453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ryden LA, Molgaard CA, Bobbitt SL. Benefits of a back care and light duty health promotion program in a hospital setting. J Commun Health 1988; 13(4): 222-230.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Deacon SP, Congdon GJ. Rehabilitation after illness and injury—A study of temporary alternative work arrangements. J Soc Occup Med 1984; 34: 46-49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Grunert BK, Devine CA, Smith CJ, Matloub HS, Sanger JR, Yousif NJ. Graded work exposure to promote work return after severe hand trauma: A replicated study. Ann Plast Surg 1992; 29(6): 532-536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Loisel P, Durand P, Abenhaim L, Gosselin L, Simard R, Turcotte J, Esdaile JM. Management of occupational back pain: The Sherbrooke model. Results of a pilot and feasibility study. Occup Environ Med 1994; 51(9): 597-602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McElligot J, Miscovich S, Fielding L. Low back injury in industry: The value of a recovery program. CT Med 1989; 53(12): 711-715.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Piterman L, Dunt D. Occupational lower-back injuries in a primary medical care setting: A five-year follow-up study. Med J Aust 1987; 147(6): 276-279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Perry MC. REACH: An alternative early return to work program. AAOHN J 1996; 44(6): 294-298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mitchell JN. Low back pain and the prospects for employment. J Soc Occup Med 1985; 35: 91-94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Caradoc-Davies TH, Wilson BD, Anson JG. The rehabilitation of injured workers in New Zealand: A pilot study. NZ Med J 1990; 103(888): 179-182.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Caradoc-Davies TH, Wilson BD, Anson JG. The cost benefit of rehabilitation of injured workers in New Zealand. NZ Med J 1991; 104(914): 245-247.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yassi A, Khokar J, Tate R, Cooper, J, Snow C, Valentyne S. The epidemiology of back injuries in nurses at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital: Implications for prevention. Occup Med 1995; 45: 215-221.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wehman P, Kregel J, Sherron P, Nguyen S, Kreutzer J, Fry R, Zasler N. Critical factors associated with the successful supported employment placement of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 1993; 7(1): 31-44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hall JA, Roter DL, Rand CS. Communication of affect between patient and physician. J Health Soc Behav 1984; 15: 18.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rothman K. Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1986, 358 pp.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lechner DE. Work hardening and work conditioning interventions: Do they affect disability? Phys Ther 1994; 74(5): 471-493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Niemeyer LO, Jacobs K, Reynolds-Lynch K, Bettencourt C, Lang S. Work hardening: Past, present, and future—the work programs special interest section national work-hardening outcome study. Am J Occup Ther 1994; 48(4): 327-339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Mayer H, Kishino ND, Keeley J, Mooney V. A prospective two-year study of functional restoration in industrial low back injury. An objective assessment procedure. JAMA 1987; 258(13): 1763-1767.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lindström I, Öhlund C, Eek C, Wallin L, Peterson LE, Nachemson A. Mobility, strength, and fitness after a graded activity program for patients with subacute low back pain. A randomized prospective clinical study with a behavioral therapy approach. Spine 1992; 17(6): 641-652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lindström I, Öhlund C, Eek C, Wallin L, Peterson LE, Fordyce WE, Nachemson AL. The effect of graded activity on patients with subacute low back pain: A randomized prospective clinical study with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach. Phys Ther 1992; 72(4): 279-290. (discussion 291–293).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hazard RG, Fenwick JW, Kalisch SM, Redmond J, Reeves V, Reid S, Frymoyer JW. Functional restoration with behavioral support: A one-year prospective study of patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 1989; 14(2): 157-161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sachs BL, David JA, Olimpio D, Scala AD, Lacroix M. Spinal rehabilitation by work tolerance based on objective physical capacity assessment of dysfunction. A prospective study with control subjects and twelve-month review [see comments]. Spine 1990; 15(12): 1325-1332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Garcy P, Mayer T, Gatchel RJ. Recurrent or new injury outcomes after return to work in chronic disabling spinal disorders. Tertiary prevention efficacy of functional restoration treatment. Spine 1996; 21(8): 952-959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hazard RG. Chronic low back pain and disability: The efficacy of functional restoration. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 1996; 55(4): 213-216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Teasell RW, Harth M. Functional restoration. Returning patients with chronic low back pain to work—revolution or fad? Spine 1996; 21(7): 844-847.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bendix T, Bendix AF, Busch E, Jordan A. Functional restoration in chronic low back pain. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996; 6(2): 88-97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bendix AF, Bendix T, Lund C, Kirkbak S, Ostenfeld S. Comparison of three intensive programs for chronic low back pain patients: A prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study with one-year follow-up. Scand J Rehabil Med 1997; 29(2): 81-89.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklas Krause
    • 1
  • Lisa K. Dasinger
    • 2
  • Frank Neuhauser
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public Health, Division of EpidemiologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  2. 2.Public Health InstituteBerkeley
  3. 3.UC Data, University of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations