Barriers to and facilitators of labor market engagement for individuals with chronic physical illnesses in their experiences with work disability policy: a qualitative systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize the best available evidence to address two questions. From the perspectives of individuals with chronic physical illnesses: i) what are the barriers in work disability policies with respect to labor market engagement? and ii) what are the facilitators in work disability policies with respect to labor market engagement? INTRODUCTION: Chronic physical illnesses have a high and increasing prevalence worldwide and are associated with significant disability in the working-age population. Individuals with chronic illnesses and disability have low employment and high unemployment rates, and low wages. Work disability policies have an important role in reducing negative labor market impacts, but inadequate policies may also pose barriers to work engagement. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included studies of individuals who were of working age, had one or more chronic physical illness, and had experience relevant to disability policy and work engagement. The phenomena of interest were perceived barriers and perceived facilitators in work disability policies with respect to labor market engagement. The context was any study setting globally. Studies considered for this review had qualitative data from a variety of methodologies. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. A literature search involved academic databases (ie, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AgeLine, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts) for published studies; gray literature sources (ie, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, MedNar, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, OAIster, Google, and relevant websites) for unpublished studies; and reference lists of retrieved records. No language, date, or country limiters were applied to the searches. Retrieved records from the database and gray literature searches were screened, with potentially relevant records then examined in full against the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were critically appraised for methodological quality and those included in this review were subjected to data extraction of descriptive details and the study findings that were relevant to the review questions. Study findings were synthesized and were assigned confidence scores. RESULTS: Forty-four studies of various qualitative designs and varied methodological quality (from low to high) were included in this review. The study samples represented a number of different chronic physical illnesses. There were 301 credible and unequivocal study findings, which were aggregated into 20 categories and 5 synthesized findings. Persons with chronic physical illnesses perceived barriers and facilitators relevant to the adequacy of disability policies in meeting their needs for returning to work after leave due to illness and for sustaining ongoing work engagement. They also perceived barriers and facilitators relevant to stakeholders' communication, help, and support respecting workers' efforts toward work engagement. CONCLUSION: Although confidence in the synthesized findings is low due to limitations in the methods and research findings across primary studies, the evidence suggests that both the adequacy and implementation of work disability policies need to be improved to meet the needs of workers with chronic physical illnesses, for their labor market engagement. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016033476.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».