Return-to-Work Following Occupational Rehabilitation for Long COVID: Descriptive Cohort Study.
COVID-19
anxiety disorder
compensation and redress
health outcome
long COVID
occupational health
patient-reported outcome
postacute COVID-19 syndrome
rehabilitation
return-to-work
Journal
JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies
ISSN: 2369-2529
Titre abrégé: JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101703412
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Sep 2022
14 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
26
05
2022
accepted:
29
08
2022
revised:
05
08
2022
pubmed:
13
9
2022
medline:
13
9
2022
entrez:
12
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Emerging evidence suggests that worldwide, between 30% and 50% of those who are infected with COVID-19 experience long COVID (LC) symptoms. These symptoms create challenges with return-to-work (RTW) in a high proportion of individuals with LC. To tailor rehabilitation programs to LC sequelae and help improve RTW outcomes, more research on LC rehabilitation program outcomes is needed. This study describes the characteristics and outcomes of workers who participated in an LC occupational rehabilitation program. A cohort study was conducted. Descriptive variables included demographic and occupational factors as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, ie, the Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS], the Post-COVID Functional Scale [PCFS], the 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], the Pain Disability Index [PDI], the pain Visual Analogue Scale [VAS], the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire [GAD-7], and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders Fifth Edition [DSM-5] posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] checklist [PCL-5]). The main outcome variable was the RTW status at discharge. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Logistic regression examined predictors of RTW. The sample consisted of 81 workers. Most workers were female (n=52, 64%) and from health-related occupations (n=43, 53%). Only 43 (53%) individuals returned to work at program discharge, with 40 (93%) of these returning to modified duties. Although there were statistically significant improvements on the pain VAS (mean 11.1, SD 25.6, t Workers undergoing LC rehabilitation reported significant but modest improvements on a variety of PROMs, but only 43 (53%) returned to work. Outcomes would likely improve with increased availability of modified duties and timelier rehabilitation. Additional research is needed, including larger observational cohorts as well as randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of LC rehabilitation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Emerging evidence suggests that worldwide, between 30% and 50% of those who are infected with COVID-19 experience long COVID (LC) symptoms. These symptoms create challenges with return-to-work (RTW) in a high proportion of individuals with LC. To tailor rehabilitation programs to LC sequelae and help improve RTW outcomes, more research on LC rehabilitation program outcomes is needed.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study describes the characteristics and outcomes of workers who participated in an LC occupational rehabilitation program.
METHODS
METHODS
A cohort study was conducted. Descriptive variables included demographic and occupational factors as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, ie, the Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS], the Post-COVID Functional Scale [PCFS], the 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], the Pain Disability Index [PDI], the pain Visual Analogue Scale [VAS], the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire [GAD-7], and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders Fifth Edition [DSM-5] posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] checklist [PCL-5]). The main outcome variable was the RTW status at discharge. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Logistic regression examined predictors of RTW.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The sample consisted of 81 workers. Most workers were female (n=52, 64%) and from health-related occupations (n=43, 53%). Only 43 (53%) individuals returned to work at program discharge, with 40 (93%) of these returning to modified duties. Although there were statistically significant improvements on the pain VAS (mean 11.1, SD 25.6, t
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Workers undergoing LC rehabilitation reported significant but modest improvements on a variety of PROMs, but only 43 (53%) returned to work. Outcomes would likely improve with increased availability of modified duties and timelier rehabilitation. Additional research is needed, including larger observational cohorts as well as randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of LC rehabilitation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36094442
pii: v9i3e39883
doi: 10.2196/39883
pmc: PMC9484483
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e39883Informations de copyright
©Katelyn Brehon, Riikka Niemeläinen, Mark Hall, Geoff P Bostick, Cary A Brown, Marguerite Wieler, Douglas P Gross. Originally published in JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (https://rehab.jmir.org), 14.09.2022.
Références
J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Mar;25(1):116-26
pubmed: 24969159
Arch Neurol. 1988 Apr;45(4):435-7
pubmed: 3355400
Chiropr Man Therap. 2016 Sep 08;24(1):32
pubmed: 27610218
Indian J Pediatr. 2020 Apr;87(4):281-286
pubmed: 32166607
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Apr;22(4):e102-e107
pubmed: 34951953
J Trauma Stress. 2015 Dec;28(6):489-98
pubmed: 26606250
Occup Med (Lond). 2022 Apr 19;72(3):177-183
pubmed: 34865116
J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Jun;25(2):357-67
pubmed: 25240395
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Dec;98(12):2355-2363
pubmed: 28647549
Infect Dis Poverty. 2020 Mar 17;9(1):29
pubmed: 32183901
J Infect. 2020 Jun;80(6):639-645
pubmed: 32240670
Pain. 1990 Feb;40(2):171-182
pubmed: 2308763
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jun 1;77(6):683-690
pubmed: 32275288
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Aug;38:101019
pubmed: 34308300
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
Brain Behav Immun. 2022 Mar;101:93-135
pubmed: 34973396
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Apr 26;57(5):
pubmed: 33925784
BJPsych Open. 2022 Mar 21;8(2):e72
pubmed: 35307048
J Occup Rehabil. 2021 Jun;31(2):444-453
pubmed: 33118130
Anesth Analg. 1999 Dec;89(6):1517-20
pubmed: 10589640
J Infect Dis. 2022 Nov 1;226(9):1593-1607
pubmed: 35429399
J Occup Rehabil. 2021 Dec;31(4):768-784
pubmed: 33751310
CMAJ. 2000 Aug 8;163(3):265-71
pubmed: 10951722
J Occup Rehabil. 2003 Mar;13(1):1-9
pubmed: 12611026
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Dec 20;20(1):1144
pubmed: 33342437
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):475-481
pubmed: 32105632
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 9;11(1):16144
pubmed: 34373540