Supportive Elements and Challenges to Return to Work Following a Concussion: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to comprehensively explore the facilitators and barriers influencing the return to work (RTW) process following a concussion, with a focus on the person impacted by concussion, medical system, funder, and workplace domains. DESIGN: A scoping review of electronic databases, including CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies published up to April 6, 2024. Studies were included if they examined factors influencing RTW following a concussion and were available in English. Data extraction, numerical analysis and deductive content analysis were performed to determine key themes from the data. Reporting guidelines provided by the PRISMA-ScR were adhered to, and the protocol has been registered and can be accessed at the Open Science Framework. RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Findings were organized into 4 main themes influencing the RTW process: the person impacted by concussion, medical system, funder, and workplace. These were further categorized into 2 subthemes: supportive elements and challenges. Various supportive elements within each theme were identified, such as individualized rehabilitation services, graduated return to work, and developing personal agency in the individual impacted by concussion. Challenges such as lack of patient education, delayed access to services, and isolating workplace accommodations were highlighted. These findings underscore the complex interplay of factors shaping the RTW trajectory post-concussion. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides a detailed examination of supportive elements and challenges in the RTW process following a concussion. The identified themes offer valuable insights for clinicians and researchers seeking to optimize RTW outcomes and support individuals re-entering the workforce after a concussion. Future research should prioritize an examination of relevant policies and practices, assessing long-term outcomes, and explore strategies to integrate support systems to enhance the RTW experience.
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 | 0.026 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".