MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205570602 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00482

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

2021· review· en· W3205570602 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra P. Small, Catherine de Boer, Michelle Swab

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Work engagementQualitative researchPsychologyPhysical disabilitySystematic reviewPublic relationsGerontologyNursingSociologyMedicineMEDLINEPolitical sciencePsychiatrySocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207