Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 22;29(3):636–659. doi: 10.1007/s10926-018-09826-x

Table 2.

Quality appraisal information using CASP tools for all included studies

Review 1: facilitators of and barriers to return-to-work (qualitative studies)
Aims clearly stated Appropriate method Appropriate design to address research aims Appropriate recruitment strategy Data collection addressed research issue Relationship between researcher/participants adequately considered Ethical issues taken into consideration Sufficient data analysis rigor Clear statement of findings
Bunzli et al. 2017 [28]
Buys et al. 2017 [29]
Cheng et al. 2011 [30]
Kosny et al. 2012 [31]
Lysaght et al. 2008 [32]
MacEachen et al. 2007 [33]
Mansfield et al. 2014 [34]
Mullen et al. 2015 [35]
Norland et al. 2013 [36]
Soklaridis et al. 2010 [37]
Thornthwaite et al. 2017 [38]
Review 2: predictors of return-to-work (cohort and case control studies)
Cohort Clear focused issued Appropriate cohort recruitment Exposure accurately measured Outcome accurately measured Important confounding factors identified Important confounding factors accounted for Follow-up complete enough Follow-up long enough
de Vente et al. 2015 [40]
Jetha et al. 2017 [42]
Kong et al. 2012 [43]
Li-Tsang et al. [45] -
Marois et al. 2009 [44]
Netterstrom et al. 2015 [47]
Reme et al. 2012 [48]
Watt et al. 2015 [50]
Case control Clearly focused issued Appropriate method Appropriate cases recruitment Appropriate control selection Exposure accurately measured Important confounding factors identified Important confounding factors accounted for
Boot et al. 2014 [39]
Holtedahl et al. 2007 [41]
Lee et al. 2015 [46]
St-Arnaud et al. 2007 [49]

✓ = Criteria was met. ✗ = Criteria was not met. – = not eligible