ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Longterm Persistence and Scalability of a Coordinated Return to Work Model in Healthcare: A Registry-Based Study Across Clinical Pathways.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the long-term persistence of an individualized coordinated return to work (CRTW) model on the return-to-work (RTW) duration among hip and knee arthroplasty patients and the immediate effectiveness of the model after implementation in cardiology patients.
methodsElectronic health records (EHRs) from five regions in Finland were used to identify working-age employees. Long-term sickness absence days were calculated between the date of admission and the final day of full-time sickness absence. Fixed effects linear models were used for region-level comparisons in hip and knee arthroplasty patients and difference-in-difference approach for cardiology patients.
resultsMean RTW was 74.7 (SD 48.5) days in hip and 89.3 (55.1) days in knee arthroplasty in the CRTW region over the follow-up. Mean difference in RTW between the CRTW and control regions was - 9.8 days (95% CI: - 15.8, - 3.9; p = 0.001) for hip and - 6.9 days (95% CI: - 12.6, - 1.2; p = 0.018) for knee arthroplasty patients. Mean RTW days among cardiology patients were 57.4 (67.1) in pre- and 46.1 (51.5) in post-implementation period in the CRTW region. No statistically significant difference in RTW duration between the CRTW and control region was observed in cardiology patients.
conclusionHip and knee arthroplasty patients in the CRTW regions continued to return to work sooner than those in the control regions even several years after the CRTW model implementation. Among cardiology patients, no evidence of systematic differences in level between the regions were seen. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed confirm the effectiveness of the CRTW model in cardiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42360404What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.