SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.18 número2La comprensión de los pictogramas de peligro de productos químicos entre trabajadores del sector de limpiezaEstimación de episodios de incapacidad temporal por contingencia común relacionados con un accidente de trabajo previo en Cataluña índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


Archivos de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales

versão On-line ISSN 1578-2549

Resumo

CORRAL, Meritxell; VARGAS-PRADA, Sergio; GIL, Josep María  e  SERRA, Consol. Return to work after musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of good practices guidelines. Arch Prev Riesgos Labor [online]. 2015, vol.18, n.2, pp.72-80. ISSN 1578-2549.  https://dx.doi.org/10.12961/aprl.2015.18.2.04.

Objective: To identify existing return-to-work (RTW) guidelines following a sickness absence (SA) due to musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) and evaluate their methodological quality. Methods: We performed a systematic search for RTW guideliness written in English, Spanish and Catalan, that included total or partial information on MSD. The identified guidelines were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively by seven experts using the validated AGREE method. Standardized scores for each domain were calculated for each of the guidelines, as well as the median of the experts scores for each of the items. In addition, each expert made a subjective judgment on the quality of the selected guidelines. Results: Thirty-two guidelines were identified. From these, 6 (3 of which were MSD-specific) were selected for an evaluation of their methodological quality. Only two, the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) and the Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders Guide & Tools (WRGT) were felt to be suitable for use without further methodological modifications. In general, all of the guidelines properly define their objectives and target audience, and the RTW options are presented in a clear and precise way. However, all guides but one (ODG) have limitations in the criteria for selection of scientific evidence, and the potential conflicts of interest are not stated. Conclusions: Only two guides of high methodological quality were identified. However, an evidence-based evaluation of the quality of their recommendations is recommended prior to their use in professional practice.

Palavras-chave : Systematic review guidelines; musculoskeletal disorder; return-to-work; temporary incapacity; evaluation.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Espanhol     · Espanhol ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons