Resuming work roles after injury in a low-income context: Multiple factors influencing the return to work outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Return to work (RTW) is an important outcome indicator for the effectiveness of rehabilitation services, and the functional status and overall recovery among individuals who have experienced injury. Despite the rising incidence of traumatic injury among economically productive citizens in Ethiopia, there is a paucity of evidence about the RTW status of injury survivors. This study examined factors associated with RTW success and determinants of time to RTW after injury in Ethiopia. METHODS: An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted to collect data retrospectively one year after patients arrived at the study setting due to traumatic injuries. Medical records of all patients who visited the emergency room of a large public hospital in Addis Ababa were reviewed. Data were collected from survivors of traumatic injury, interviewed by telephone one year post-injury. Multivariable logistic regression and survival analysis were carried out to explore factors. RESULTS: Of the 251 participants, 75% were young adults (age </ = 39 years), 78% were male, 78% were urban residents, 41% were injured by road traffic collisions, and 59% returned to work within one year. The logistic regression model revealed short inpatient admission (AOR = 4.20; 95% CI: 2.10-8.50; p ≤ 0.001), no disability (AOR = 4.44; 95% CI: 2.10-9.60; p ≤ 0.001), motivation to RTW (AOR = 3.50; 95% CI: 1.61-7.50; p = 0.002), no chronic illness (AOR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.14-4.70; p = 0.020), being in an administrative position (AOR = 5.32; 95% CI: 1.11-25.78; p = 0.038) and receiving injury compensation (AOR = 3.10; 95% CI: 1.22-7.73; p = 0.017) as factors for successful RTW within a year after injury. Further, the Cox regression analysis identified immediate access to healthcare after injury (AHR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.05-2.25; p ≤ 0.026) and having injury of penetrative to internal organ, strain, sprain, dislocation or soft tissue (AHR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.20-2.80; p = 0.007) as determinants of early RTW after traumatic injury. CONCLUSION: The study uncovers factors crucial to RTW planning and interventions, and provides insights to minimize barriers, foster a smooth transition to employment, and optimize survivors' lives after injury.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".