Mary Stergiou-Kita1, Alisa Grigorovich. 1. Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, mary.kita@uhn.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A systematic literature review was undertaken to gather evidence to develop a guideline for vocational evaluation following burn injuries (BI). This review aimed to identify the key processes evaluators should follow and the key factors they should consider when completing such evaluations. METHODS: Steps outlined in Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review were followed including: development of review question; search strategies and selection criteria; quality appraisal; data extraction; analysis & synthesis; drawing conclusions. Four databases (Pubmed, Medline, CINHAL, PsycINFO) and 14 websites were searched for relevant articles and studies (quantitative, qualitative), reviews and guidelines. Two reviewers independently completed reviews, performed quality assessments and extracted data into evidence tables. Using the ICF model and directed content analysis, key processes and factors were analyzed and synthesized across the evidence. RESULTS: A total of 138 articles were identified using the key words (e.g. burns, work). Studies, reviews and guidelines were retrieved if they focused on adults and discussed the processes relevant to vocational evaluation and/or factors associated with successful return to work (RTW) following a BI. Items were excluded if they did not address adults who had suffered a burn, the process of work or RTW, or challenges related to work after a BI. Using the above criteria 76 items were retrieved for full review. Fifty-six items remained after the quality appraisal. Results were integrated to develop the Evidence-based Framework for Vocational Evaluation Following Burn Injury. CONCLUSIONS: This framework outlines 7 key processes relevant to vocational evaluation following burn injuries.
PURPOSE: A systematic literature review was undertaken to gather evidence to develop a guideline for vocational evaluation following burn injuries (BI). This review aimed to identify the key processes evaluators should follow and the key factors they should consider when completing such evaluations. METHODS: Steps outlined in Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review were followed including: development of review question; search strategies and selection criteria; quality appraisal; data extraction; analysis & synthesis; drawing conclusions. Four databases (Pubmed, Medline, CINHAL, PsycINFO) and 14 websites were searched for relevant articles and studies (quantitative, qualitative), reviews and guidelines. Two reviewers independently completed reviews, performed quality assessments and extracted data into evidence tables. Using the ICF model and directed content analysis, key processes and factors were analyzed and synthesized across the evidence. RESULTS: A total of 138 articles were identified using the key words (e.g. burns, work). Studies, reviews and guidelines were retrieved if they focused on adults and discussed the processes relevant to vocational evaluation and/or factors associated with successful return to work (RTW) following a BI. Items were excluded if they did not address adults who had suffered a burn, the process of work or RTW, or challenges related to work after a BI. Using the above criteria 76 items were retrieved for full review. Fifty-six items remained after the quality appraisal. Results were integrated to develop the Evidence-based Framework for Vocational Evaluation Following Burn Injury. CONCLUSIONS: This framework outlines 7 key processes relevant to vocational evaluation following burn injuries.
Authors: Shawn T Mason; Peter Esselman; Robert Fraser; Katherine Schomer; Anjali Truitt; Kurt Johnson Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kristi L Kirschner; Steve R Geiringer; Vilia Tarvydas; Rebecca Brashler; Pamela Capraro; Walter S Davis; Thomas Yates Journal: PM R Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Matthew B Klein; Dennis L Lezotte; James A Fauerbach; David N Herndon; Karen J Kowalske; Gretchen J Carrougher; Barbara J deLateur; Radha Holavanahalli; Peter C Esselman; Theresa B San Agustin; Loren H Engrav Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Inge Spronk; Nancy E E Van Loey; Cornelis H van der Vlies; Juanita A Haagsma; Suzanne Polinder; Margriet E van Baar Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 1.845