Original Articles
20 February 2025
Vol. 43 No. 3 (2021)

[Return to work: “Endpoint” of rehabilitation and occupational medicine intervention in stroke outcomes. The state of the art]

Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
31
Views
17
Downloads

Authors

Cerebrovascular diseases, in particular stroke, are historically known as diseases that mainly affect the elderly, which is why "Return to work" (RTW) is considered an outcome index only in a few studies. However, the increased incidence of stroke in individuals of working age, coupled with the phenomena of increased survival and retirement age occurring in today's society, lead to a reconsideration of RTW as an important endpoint of recovery after stroke. Especially in the last twenty years, rehabilitation scenarios have evolved towards a multidisciplinary vision focused on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions, also with respect to the "Health related-Quality of life" (HRQoL), and towards greater scientific rigor in therapeutic choices (extended also to the new "IoT" Technologies), with an interest in standardized measures effectively linked to functional improvement. On the basis of a complete review of the literature, we want to expose here the fundamental factors associated with post-stroke RTW, with a view to recapitulating the acquired and stabilized results that influence the joint approach between occupational medicine and rehabilitation.

Altmetrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

- Cieza A., Causey K., Kamenov K., Hanson S. W., Chatterji S., Vos T. (2020), Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019, Lancet, 396(10267), 2006-17. - Bazzini G., Cortese G., Matarrese M.R., Miccio A., Panigazzi M., Prestifilippo E., et al. Il core set INAIL del gesto lavorativo: analisi critica su 220 casi. Relazione al X Convegno Nazionale di Medicina Legale Previdenziale - INAIL. Rimini, 22-23 ottobre 2014. Atti del Convegno. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0
- Lopez A.D., Mathers C.D., Ezzati M., Jamison D.T., Murray C.J. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006;367:1747-1757. - Harris C. Return to work after stroke: a nursing state of the science. Stroke. 2014 Sep;45(9):e 174-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68770-9
Sultan S., Elkind M.S. Stroke in young adults: on the rise? Neurology. 2012;79:1752-1753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827040d6
- Smajlovic D. Strokes in young adults: epidemiology and prevention. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2015 Feb 24;11:157-64. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S53203. eCollection 2015 - Schöberl F., Ringleb P.A., Wakili R., Poli S., Wollenweber F.A., Kellert L. Juvenile Stroke. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017 Aug 7;114(31-32): 527-534. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0527 - Wang Y.C., Kapellusch J., Garg A. Important factors influencing the return to work after stroke. Work 2014;47(4):553-9.
- Gallo W.T., Bradley E.H., Teng H.M., Kasl S.V. The effect of recurrent involuntary job loss on the depressive symptoms of older US workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;80:109-116. - Treger I., Shames J., Giaquinto S., Ring H. Return to work in stroke patients. Disabil. Rehabi. 2007;29:1397-1403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-006-0108-5
Matarrese, Cortese, Bazzini, Castaldo, Dal Pozzo, Nicita. INAIL the ICF based core set in the functional assessment of the residual capacities for return to work. Proceedings of the EUMASS Congress 2014 Stockholm, 11-13 settembre 2014.
- Gobelet, et al. Vocational rehabilitation: A multidisciplinary intervention. Disability and Rehabilitation 2007;29(17):1405-1410. - Giaquinto, et al. Return to work in selected disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation 2007;29(17):1313-1316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701315060
- Balasubramanian S., Colombo R., Sterpi I., Sanguineti V., Burdet E. Robotic assessment of upper limb motor function after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;91(11 Suppl 3):5255-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e31826bcdc1
- Colombo R., Pisano F., Delconte C., Mazzone A., Grioni G., Castagna M., Bazzini G., Imarisio C., Maggioni G., Pistarini C. Comparison of exercise training effect with different robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation: a retrospective study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017 Apr; 53(2):240-248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.16.04297-0
Raglio A., Laliani A., Baiardi P., Bossi D., Sguazzin C., Capodaglio E., Imbriani C., Gontero G., Imbriani M. Active music therapy approach for stroke patients in the post-acute rehabilitation. Neurol Sci. 2017 May;38(5):893-897. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-2827-7
- Bruni M.F., Melegari C., De Cola M.C., Bramanti A., Bramanti P., Calabrò R.S. What does best evidence tell us about robotic gait rehabilitation in stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2018 Feb;48:11-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2017.10.048
- Morone G., losa M., Bragoni M., De Angelis D., Venturiero V., Coiro P., Riso R., Pratesi L., Paolucci S. Who may have durable benefit from robotic gait training?: a 2-year follow-up randomized controlled trial in patients with subacute stroke. Stroke. 2012 Apr;43(4):1140-2. - Demers, Weiss-Lambrou & Ska, Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 2000;12(2):96-105. Traduzione italiana a cura di Patrizia Fucelli e, Renzo Andrich. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.638148

How to Cite



[Return to work: “Endpoint” of rehabilitation and occupational medicine intervention in stroke outcomes. The state of the art]. (2025). Giornale Italiano Di Medicina Del Lavoro Ed Ergonomia, 43(3), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.4081/gimle.543