Table 2.

Study characteristics, employer determinants and work outcomes; Study outcome *(S = self-reported, R = register based) **(NR = not reported in the manuscript)

First author, year Country	Sample	Disability type	Scientific discipline	Time to follow-up	Outcome measure	Study outcome*	Employer determinant	Effect size, (95-CI/SE))
Amick, 2017 Canada [56]	Injured Ontario workers on sick-leave Aged 15 +  54.8% male	Musculoskeletal injury	Medical	6 and 12 months	Return to work 6 months	S	Organizational support	OR 1.77 (1.07; 2.93)
					Return to work 12 months			OR 2.07 (1.18; 3.62)
Anema, 2009 Denmark, Germany, Israël, Netherlands, Sweden, United States [33]	Sickness benefit claimants (> 3 months) Age: 18–59 39–74% male (six studies)	Lower back pain	Medical	2 years	Return to work	S and R	Adaptation workplace	HR 0.61 (0.52; 0.71)
							Job redesign	HR 0.57 (0.49; 0.66)
							Working hours adaptation	HR 0.67 (0.57; 0.78)
							Job/vocational training	NR** (insignificant)
							Therapeutic work resumption	HR 0.65 (0.55; 0.78)
Biering, 2015 Denmark [57]	Patients at Aarhus University Hospital treated with PCI on sickness absence > 3 months Age: 25–67 86.2% male	Coronary Heart Disease	Medical	3 and 12 months	Return to work	S and R	Low recognition (rewards)	3 months: OR 2.57 (1.36; 4.86)
								12 months: OR 0.68 (0.33; 1.40)
							Low justice	3 months: OR 1.61 (0.89; 2.92)
								12 months: OR 1.15 (0.57; 2.32)
							Low social community at work	3 months: OR 1.55 (0.82; 2.90)
								12 months: OR 0.94 (0.47; 1.91)
							Low social inclusiveness	3 months: OR 1.14 (0.60; 2.15)
								12 months: OR 0.81 (0.42; 1.57)
Blinder, 2017 United States [20]	Patients treated (stage I–III) at four hospitals and clinics in New York City (> 4 months after treatment) Age 18–64 0% male	Breast cancer	Medical	4 months	Continued employment	S	Employer was accommodating	OR 2.96 (NR, significant)
							Employer size (< 15, ref)	–
							Employer size (15–49)	OR 1.02 (NR, insignificant)
							Employer size (50 and more)	OR 2.65 (NR, significant)
Boot, 2014 Canada [46]	Injured workers on sick-leave having lost-time claims Working age 51% male	Musculoskeletal injury	Medical	12 months	Return to work	S	Positive supervisor response	OR 1.70 (1.17; 2.49)
Bouknight, 2006 United States [25]	Patients with a first primary diagnosis of breast cancer in Detroit area. (> 12 months after diagnosis) Age 30–64 0% male	Breast cancer	Medical	12 and 18 months	Return to work	S	Employer accommodation	12 months: OR 2.2 (1.03; 4.8)
								18 months: OR 2.3 (1.06; 5.1)
Bryngelson, 2012 Sweden [35]	Workers on long-term (> 90 days) sick leave having additional sickness insurance (public sector and manual workers) Age 20–61 17% male	Psychiatric disorder	Medical	3 years	Long-term sickness absence & Newly granted DI	S&R	Workplace-oriented rehabilitation	OR 0.81 (0.68; 0.96)
							Workplace-oriented rehabilitation and no change	OR 0.70 (0.59; 0.83)
							Change of occupation	OR 0.35 (0.27; 0.45)
							Workplace-oriented rehabilitation	OR 1.02 (0.81; 1.27)
Burkhauser, 1999 United States [31]	U.S. workers with a work limiting health condition (> 1 year after sick-leave) Age 21–59 100% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	up to 17 years	Long-term disability: Applying for DI	S&R	Accommodation (HRS)	HR − 0.60 (SE 0.35)
							Accommodation (SDW)	HR − 0.54 (SE 0.15)
Burkhauser, 1995 United States [24]	U.S. workers with a work limiting health condition (> 1 year after sick-leave) Age 21–59 100% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	up to 17 years	Continued employment: Job exit	S&R	Accommodation	HR − 1.22 (NR, significant)
Cooper, 2013 United Kingdom [34]	Cancer Patients registered at out-patient departments of hospitals (> 6 months after sick-leave) Aged 18 +  44% male	Breast, Gynecological, Urological, Head and neck cancer	Medical	12 months	Return to work	S	Flexible working allowed	HR 1.70 (1.07; 2.70)
							Company size small (< 60)	NR (insignificant)
							Company size, medium (60–100)	NR (insignificant)
							Company size, large (100 and more)	NR (insignificant)
Daly, 1996 United States [60]	U.S. workers with a work limiting health condition (> 1 year after sick-leave) Age 51–61 57% male	Work limiting health condition	Medical	Up to 17 years	Change employer	S	Number of workers (logarithm)	Men: OR − 0.50 (SE 0.055)
							Number of workers (logarithm)	Women: OR − 0.33 (SE 0.06)
					Stopped working		Number of workers (logarithm)	Men: OR 0.00 (SE 0.052)
							Number of workers (logarithm)	Women: OR 0.03 (SE 0.055)
De Vries, 2015 Netherlands [48]	Sick listed patients at occupational health services in Amsterdam (18 months after sick leave) Age 18–65 55% male	Major depressive disorder	Medical	18 months	Work functioning	S	Supervisor support	NR (insignificant)
Dorland, 2018 Netherlands [44]	Cancer patients who resumed work for at least 12 h/week > 3 months Age 18–65 37% male	Cancer	Medical	n/a	Work functioning	S	Social support supervisor	ME 0.71 (0.29; 1.13)
Ekberg, 2015 Sweden [58]	Patients on sick leave for at least 3 months in Östergötland Age 18–65 67% male	Common Mental Disorders	Medical	3 to 12 months	Return to work	S & R	Organizational culture (justice)	NR (insignificant)
Engström, 2007 Sweden [68]	Sick registered individuals (1–3 years after sick leave) in the county of Värmland. Working age population 23.5% male	stress-related psychiatric disorders	Medical	2 years	Return to work (partial)	R	County, health	OR 0.37 (NR, significant)
							Private	OR 0.64 (NR, insignificant)
							Municipality, education	OR 0.80 (NR, insignificant)
							Municipality, other	OR 0.83 (NR, insignificant)
							Municipality, health (elderly care)	OR 0.84 (NR, insignificant)
							County, other	OR 0.95 (NR, insignificant)
							Public, other (ref.)	–
					Return to work (full)		County, health	OR 0.42 (NR, insignificant)
							County, other	OR 0.73 (NR, insignificant)
							Private	OR 0.74 (NR, insignificant)
							Municipality, health (elderly care)	OR 0.89 (NR, insignificant)
							Municipality, education	OR 0.92 (NR, insignificant)
							Municipality, other	OR 1.09 (NR, insignificant)
							Public, other (ref.)	–
Ervasti, 2016 Finland, UK and France [49]	Employees with diabetes on sick-leave for at least 1 year. Working age population 28%, 70%, 76% male	Diabetes	Medical	1 to 5 years	Absence duration	S&R	Low supervisor support	Finland; Women RR 1.09 (0.74; 1.61)
							Low supervisor support	Finland; Men RR 1.23 (0.67; 2.65))
					Absence duration		Low supervisor support	UK; Women RR 1.33 (0.65; 2.74)
							Low supervisor support	UK; Men RR 1.27 (0.60; 2.67)
					Return to work		Low supervisor support	France; Women RR 1.82 (0.70; 4.73)
							Low supervisor support	France; Men RR 0.98 (0.43; 2.23)
Everhardt, 2011 Netherlands [26]	Workers on long-term sick leave (> 9 months) Working age population 55% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	18 months	Return to work	S	Accommodation (employer)	HR 1.89 (NR, significant)
							Accommodation (occupational health service)	HR 1.48 (NR, significant)
							Accommodation (other agency)	HR 0.76 (NR, significant)
							Return to work-plan	HR 1.25 (NR, significant)
Faucett, 2000 United States [32]	Patients in Santa Clara County (> 18 months after sick leave) Working age population 24% male	Carpal tunnel syndrome	Medical	18 months	Active employment	S	Supervisor support	NR (insignificant)
							Employer size <250	OR 13.61 (1.24; 149.80)
							Work accommodation (work change)	OR 10.30 (1.12; 94.59)
					Job change (any)		Supervisor support	HR 0.71 (0.29; 1.78)
							Size	HR 1.64 (0.49; 5.46)
							Work accommodation (work change)	HR 1.13 (0.33; 3.88)
Franche, 2007 Canada [27]	Sick listed Ontario workers (> 6 months) at firms with workers’ compensation coverage Aged 15 +  53.4% male	Musculoskeletal	Medical	6 months	Return to work	S&R	Work accomodation offer rejected	HR 0.53 (0.39; 0.72)
							No work accomodation offered	HR 0.46 (0.38; 0.57)
							No contact between HCP and the workplace	HR 1.24 (NR insignificant)
							No advice from HCP to the workplace	HR 0.56 (NR significant)
							Ergonomic worksite visits	HR 1.44 (NR significant)
							Return to work coordinator	HR 0.84 (NR insignificant)
Frölich, 2004 Sweden [36]	Sicklisted workers in Western Sweden (> 8 months) Working-age population 40% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	8–42 months	Return to work	R	No rehabilitation (reference)	–
							Passive rehabilitation	PSM − 12.0 (NR, significant)
							Workplace rehabilitation (vocational work training)	NR (insignificant)
							Educational rehabilitation	PSM − 18.7 (NR, significant)
							Medical rehabilitation	PSM − 7.8 (NR, significant)
							Social rehabilitation	NR (insignificant)
Gordon, 2014 Australia [62]	Newly-diagnosed patients in Queensland (12 months after sick-leave) Age 45–64 67% male	Colorectal cancer	Medical	12 months	Time to work resumption	S	Employer size < 20 (ref.)	–
							Employer size (20–100)	OR 1.66 (1.09; 2.53)
							Employer size (> 100)	OR 1.47 (0.83; 2.60)
Hannerz, 2012 Denmark [61]	Previously employed stroke-patients Age 21–57 60.4% male	Stroke	Medical	2 years	Return to work	R	Employer size < 10 (ref. 250 +)	OR 0.83 (0.73; 0.95)
							Employer size 10–49	OR 0.87 (0.77; 0.98)
							Employer size 50–249	OR 0.90 (0.80; 1.01)
Haveraaen, 2014 Norway [50]	Sick-listed employees who participated in return to work services NR 23.9% male	Work limiting health condition	Medical	3 months	Return to work	S&R	Supervisor support (high)	OR 3.94 (1.57; 7.31)
Hill, 2016 United States [21]	Newly disabled workers Aged 51 +  41% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	2 and 4 years	Continued employment	S	Accommodation	2 years: ME 0.171 (SE 0.033)
							Accommodation—Work change	2 years: ME 0.273 (NR significant)
					Continued employment		Accommodation—Changes to time	2 years: ME 0.162 (NR significant)
							Accommodation—Equipment/assistance	2 years: ME 0.118 (NR significant)
					Continued employment		Accommodation—Other	2 years: ME 0.105 (NR significant)
							Accommodation	4 years: ME 0.045 (SE 0.037)
					Receiving DI/ Applying for DI		Accommodation	4 years: ME 0.017 (SE 0.032)
							Accommodation	4 years: ME − 0.037 (SE 0.035)
Hogelund, 2006 Denmark [37]	Long-term sick-listed employees Working-age population 44% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	Up to 7 years	Return to work	S&R	Case management interview	HR 1.69 (SE 0.943)
					Return to work for pre-sick leave employer		Case management interview	HR 2.77 (SE 1.095)
					Return to work for new employer:		Case management interview	HR − 0.73 (SE 1.694)
	Employees who did not participate in vocational rehabilitation				Return to work		Case management interview	HR 2.37 (SE 1.013)
					Return to work for pre-sick leave employer		Case management interview	HR 3.94 (SE 1.155)
					Return to work for new employer		Case management interview	HR − 1.94 (SE 1.85)
					Return to work		Sector	NR (insignificant)
Hogelund, 2014 Denmark [22]	Long-term sick-listed employees Working age population 36% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	Up to 28 months	Ending employment	S&R	Workplace accommodations, current employer	HR − 0.527 (SE 0.267)
							Reduced working hours, current employer	HR − 0.476 (SE 0.314)
							New job, current employer	HR 0.021 (SE 0.424)
							Light duties, current employer	HR − 0.273 (SE 0.463)
							Adaptations, current employer	HR − 0.471 (SE 0.481)
							New employer	HR 0.592 (SE 0.254)
							Company size	NR (insignificant)
							Public sector company	HR − 0.329 (SE 0.208)
Janssen, 2003 Netherlands [51]	Long-term sick-listed employee Age 19–60 71% male	Work limiting health condition	Medical	4 months	Full return to work	S	Supervisor support	OR 1.40 (1.08; 1.83)
					Return to work with adjustments		Supervisor support	OR 1.17 (0.93; 1.48)
					Full return to work versus return to work with adjustments		Supervisor support	OR 1.18 (0.92; 1.51)
Katz, 2005 United States [52]	Patients in the state of Maine Aged 18 +  42% male	Carpal tunnel syndrome	Medical	6 and 12 months	Work absence	S	Social support of supervisors	NR (insignificant)
							Number of employees	Return to work with adjustments: NR (insignificant)
							Organizational policies and practices (less supportive)	12 months: OR 2.94 (1.18; 7.34)
							Organizational policies and practices (less supportive)	6 months full return to work versus return to work with adjustments: NR (insignificant)
Kools, 2019 Netherlands [39]	Sick-listed employees assigned to a large private workplace reintegration provider Working age population 53% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	1 and 2 year	Return to work 12 months	R	Graded return to work (first year)	ME 0.13 (SE 0.122)
					Return to work 24 months		Graded return to work (first year)	ME 0.08 (SE 0.109)
					Return to work 12 months		Graded return to work (first semester)	ME 0.38 (SE 0.125)
					Return to work 24 months		Graded return to work (first semester)	ME 0.07 (SE 0.104)
Lindbohm, 2014 Denmark [45]	Breast cancer patients. The data is from a cross-sectional dataset and the analyses is longitudinal retrospective Age 25–57 0% male	Breast cancer	Medical	1–8 years	Non-employed (excl. early retirement)	S&R	Moderate support from the supervisor (ref. high)	OR 0.95 (0.43; 2.08)
							Weak support from the supervisor (ref. high)	OR 2.51 (1.10; 5.72)
Lund, 2006 Denmark [63]	Sick listed employees Working age population 50% male	Work limiting health condition	Medical	1 year	Return to work	S&R	Private	HR 1.21 (1.04; 1.41)
							< 20(ref.)	–
							20–100 (< 20 baseline)	HR 0.86 (0.74; 1.00)
							> 100 (< 20 baseline)	HR 0.86 (0.73; 1.00)
Markussen, 2011 Norway [64]	Sick-listed employees certified by a physician Age 30–60 NR	Work limiting health condition	Economic	1 year	Return to work (minor disease)	R	Firm with less than 20 employees	HR − 0.02 (NR significant)
							Mining	HR − 0.14 (NR)
							Transportation	HR − 0.10 (NR)
							Agriculture	HR − 0.05 (NR)
							Other	HR − 0.04 (NR)
							Construction	HR − 0.04 (NR)
							Health	HR − 0.03 (NR)
							Public administration	HR − 0.03 (NR)
							Wholesale and retail trade	HR − 0.03 (NR)
							Education	HR − 0.03 (NR)
							Recreation	HR − 0.02 (NR)
							Professional and administrative services	HR − 0.02 (NR)
							Accomodation and restaurants	HR − 0.02 (NR)
							Information and communication	HR − 0.01 (NR)
							Financial and insurance	HR − 0.01 (NR)
							Manufacturing	HR − 0.01 (NR)
							Real estate	HR − 0.00 (NR)
							Utilities	HR 0.01 (NR)
					Return to work (major disease)		Firm with less than 20 employees	HR − 0.12 (significant)
							Transportation	HR − 0.13 (NR)
							Real estate	HR − 0.12 (NR)
							Mining	HR − 0.11 (NR)
							Wholesale and retail trade	HR − 0.10 (NR)
							Education	HR − 0.10 (NR)
							Professional and administrative services	HR − 0.10 (NR)
							Public administration	HR − 0.09 (NR)
							Financial and insurance	HR − 0.08 (NR)
							Agriculture	HR − 0.08 (NR)
							Other	HR − 0.05 (NR)
							Information and communication	HR − 0.05 (NR)
							Manufacturing	HR − 0.04 (NR)
							Recreation	HR − 0.03 (NR)
							Accomodation and restaurants	HR − 0.03 (NR)
							Health	HR − 0.02 (NR)
							Utilities	HR − 0.00 (NR)
							Construction	HR 0.07 (NR)
Markussen, 2012 Norway [42]	Long-term sick-listed employees handled by the family doctor. Working age population 44% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	24 months	Employment	R	Graded return to work	ME 0.21 (SE 0.03)
					Days on social security		Graded return to work	ME − 102.30 (SE 8.2)
					Absense duration days		Graded return to work	ME − 58.80 (SE 8.0)
Markussen, 2014 Norway [43]	Entrants into the temporary disability insurance program Age 18–57 46% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	12 months	Continued employment	R	Placement in regular firms, with or without individual support	ME 11.66 (SE 5.74)
					Long-term disability		Placement in regular firms, with or without individual support	ME − 12.94 (SE 7.26)
Markussen, 2018 Norway [38]	Long-term sick-listed employees (after ± 6 months) certified by a physician Age 18–66 42% male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	12 months	Return to work (days)	R	Compulsory dialog meetings—high/mixed intensity	ME − 20.30 (NR, significant)
							Compulsory dialog meetings—high/low intensity	ME − 19.00 (NR, significant)
McLaren, 2017 United States [28]	Workers’ compensation data from private and public firms	Work limiting health condition	Economic	5 years	Return to work	S&R	Return to work program	HR 1.38 ((NR, significant)
							Modified work	HR 1.27 (NR, significant)
							Different job (same firm)	HR 0.70 (NR, significant)
							Scheduling accomodations	HR 1.22 (NR, insignificant)
							Modified equipment	HR 1.50 (NR, significant)
Mehnert, 2013 Germany [29]	Patients from cancer rehabilitation facilities Age 18–60 14.3% male	Cancer (mainly breast cancer and gynecological cancer)	Medical	12 months	Reemployment	S	Perceived employer accommodation	OR 1.93 (1.41; 2.65)
					Time to RTW		Perceived employer accommodation	HR 1.18 (1.06; 1.32)
Muijzer, 2011 Netherlands [53]	Employees applying for disability benefits after 2 years of sickness absence Working age population 43% male	Physical or Mental	Medical	2 year	No return to work (full/partial)	S	Relationship employer/employee (poor)	OR 14.59 (3.29; 64.71)
							Conflict with supervisor	NR (insignificant)
Netterstrom, 2015 Denmark [54]	Patients on sick leave Working age population 19.7% male	Work-Related Common Mental Disorders	Medical	1 year & 3 years	Return to work	S&R	Low support from leader	1 year NR (significant)
							Low support from leader	3 years NR (insignificant)
Neumark, 2015 United States [23]	Patients in eight centers in Virginia Age 21–64 0% male	Breast cancer	Economic	9 months	Employment	S	Any accommodation	ME 0.019 (SE 0.05)
							Helper at work	ME 0.024 (SE 0.028)
							Shorter day	ME − 0.030 (SE 0.029)
							Allowed schedule change	ME − 0.008 (SE 0.044)
							Allowed more breaks	ME 0.037 (SE 0.034)
							Special transportation	ME − 0.126 (SE 0.085)
							Job change	ME 0.008 (SE 0.039)
							Help learning new skills	ME 0.026 (SE 0.046)
							Special equipment	ME 0.062 (SE 0.044)
							Assistance with rehabilitative services	ME 0.121 (SE 0.055)
Nielsen, 2012 Denmark [65]	Employees on sick leave in Copenhagen Working age population 20.5% male	Mental health problems	Medical	52 weeks	Return to work	S&R	Size > 250	NR (insignificant)
							Municipal	0.62 (0.41; 0.94)
							Private (ref. governmental)	0.65 (0.44; 0.96)
							Governmental (ref)	-
Nieuwenhuijsen, 2004 Netherlands [40]	Patients on sick leave at nine occupational health service center and their supervisors Working-age population 42% male	Mental health problems	Medical	1 year	Return to work (full)	S&R	Communication with employee	HR 1.7 (1.0; 2.8)
							Promoting gradual return to work	HR 0.8 (0.4; 1.5)
							Consulting with professionals	HR 0.6 (0.4; 1.0)
					Return to work (partial)		Communication with employee	HR 1.3 (0.8; 2.0)
							Promoting gradual return to work	HR 0.9 (0.5; 1.5)
							Consulting with professionals	HR 0.7 (0.5; 1.2)
Nieuwenhuijsen, 2006 Netherlands [55]	Sick listed workers from nine occupational health services Working age population 40% male	Common mental disorders	Medical	12 months	Full return to work	S&R	Supervisory support	HR 1.1 (NR, insignificant)
Prang, 2016 Australia [66]	Claimants (non-federal government) Age 15–70 44% male	Mental health condition (work related)	Medical	2 years	Return to work	R	Workplace size—small (ref. Government)	HR 0.81 (NR, significant)
							Workplace size—medium	HR 0.97 (NR, significant)
							Workplace size—large	HR 1.15 (NR, significant)
							Scientific and technical services	HR 0.72 (0.62; 0.92)
							Education	HR 0.74 (0.68; 0.80)
							Information and communication	HR 0.75 (0.62; 0.92)
							Financial and insurance	HR 0.76 (0.63; 0.91)
							Public administration	HR 0.77 (0.71; 0.83)
							Manufacturing	HR 0.79 (0.71; 0.87)
							Wholesale trade	HR 0.80 (0.69; 0.91)
							Agriculture	HR 0.81 (0.62; 1.07)
							Retail trade	HR 0.81 (0.71; 0.93)
							Real estate	HR 0.83 (0.68; 1.01)
							Construction	HR 0.87 (0.73; 1.03
							Administrative services	HR 0.87 (0.74; 1.03)
							Utilities	HR 0.88 (0.67; 1.15)
							Accomodation and food services	HR 0.89 (0.75; 1.05)
							Other services	HR 0.89 (0.78; 1.02)
							Mining	HR 0.92 (0.47; 1.77)
							Recreation	HR 0.92 (0.78; 1.10)
							Health (ref.)	–
							Transportation	HR 1.24 (1.11; 1.38)
Post, 2005 Netherlands [47]	Employees on sickness absence Age 18–63 50% male	Work limiting health condition	Medical	10 months	Return to work	S	Supervisor support (low)	RR 1.00–
							Supervisor support (high)	RR 1.23 (1.02; 1.49)
							Health care and welfare services	RR 1.00–
							Industry	RR 1.20 (0.96; 1.52)
							Trade	RR 1.07 (0.67; 1.70)
							Culture, recreation and other services	RR 0.89 (0.60; 1.34)
							Construction	RR 0.85 (0.62; 1.18)
							Other	RR 0.83 (0.48; 1.43)
							Public administration	RR 0.78 (0.57; 1.05)
							Transport	RR 0.78 (0.52; 1.16)
							Financial and commercial services	RR 0.74 (0.49; 1.13)
							Education	RR 0.46 (0.35; 0.61)
							Company size 1–9	RR 0.64 (0.39; 1.05)
							Company size 10–99	RR 0.79 (0.65; 0.94)
							Company size > 100	RR 1.00–
Schneider, 2016 Germany [41]	Sickness fund claimants Working age population 52% Male	Work limiting health condition	Economic	17 months	Return to work		Size < 50 (ref.)	–
							Size 50–249	HR 1.02 (SE 0.5161)
							Size > 250	HR 1.07 (SE 0.0013)
							Graded return-to-work program	Sickness absence < 120 days HR < 1.0 (NR, significant)
							Graded return-to-work program	Sickness absence > 120 days HR > 1.0 (NR, significant)
Schroër, 2005 Netherlands [59]	Employees on sick leave. Working age population 70% male	Work limiting health condition	Medical	15 months	Return to work	S	Private (ref. public)	OR 2.02 (significant)
							Size < 800 employees	OR 0.89 (0.41; 1.95)
							Job/employee oriented culture	OR 0.63 (0.31; 1.28)
							Process/result-oriented culture	OR 0.97 (0.45; 2.12)
							Open/closed culture	OR 1.82 (0.92; 3.36)
Smith, 2014 Australia [67]	Claimants receiving wage replacement. Working age population 58% male	Mental and Musculoskeletal	Medical	24 months	Days away from work	R	Small	Mental: HR 0.13 (SE 0.08)
							Medium (reference)	–
							Large/Government	Mental: HR − 0.23 (SE 0.06)
							Small	Musculoskeletal: HR 0.43 (SE 0.04)
							Medium (reference)	–
							Large/Government	Musculoskeletal: HR − 0.21 (SE 0.04)
							Healthcare	Musculoskeletal: HR − 0.27 (NR)
							Education	Musculoskeletal: HR − 0.26 (NR)
							Public administration	Musculoskeletal: HR − 0.17 (NR)
							Retail trade	Musculoskeletal: HR − 0.05 (NR)
							Other	Musculoskeletal: HR − 0.03 (NR)
							Wholesale trade	Musculoskeletal: HR 0.00 (NR)
							Transport	Musculoskeletal: HR 0.04 (NR)
							Agriculture	Musculoskeletal: HR 0.06 (NR)
							Construction	Musculoskeletal: HR 0.22 (NR)
							Manufacturing (reference)	–
Turner, 2008 United States [30]	Claimants (who receive some wage replacement) Working age population 68% male	Back injury (work related)	Medical	12 months	Work disability	S& R	Job accommodation not offered	OR 1.91 (1.31; 2.76)
							Employer size	NR (insignificant)
							Mining (ref. trade & transportation)	OR 1.02 (0.42; 2.48)
							Construction	OR 1.88 (1.12; 3.17)
							Manufacturing	OR 1.98 (1.04; 3.77)
							Management	OR 1.08 (0.62; 1.89)
							Education/health	OR 0.92 (0.49; 1.74)
							Hospitality	OR 1.05 (0.58; 1.91)
Veenstra, 2018 United States [69]	Patients with stage III colorectal cancer Age > 18 years 57% male	Colorectal cancer	Medical	12 months	Job retention	S	Employer-based health insurance	HR 2.97 (1.56; 6.01)
							Paid sick leave	HR 2.93 (1.23; 6.98)
							Extended sick leave	HR 1.41 (0.61; 2.12)
							Unpaid time off	HR 0.79 (0.44; 1.40)
							Disability benefits	HR 0.55 (0.27; 1.14)

*(S = self-reported, R = register based)

**(NR = not reported)

***The data is from a cross-sectional dataset and the analysis is longitudinal retrospective