Is a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline more effective than general practitioner education or preferred-provider rehabilitation in promoting recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. SETTING: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury. RESULTS: The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00546806.

Return-to-work challenges following a work-related mild TBI: The injured worker perspective.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To explore how individuals with work-related mild traumatic brain injury (wrMTBI) experience return-to-work (RTW) processes when returning to the workplace where the injury occurred. DESIGN: RTW experiences were explored using in-depth interviews and an inductive analytic approach. Qualitative analysis guided by the research question moved through phases of line-by-line and thematic coding through which categories and the interaction between categories emerged. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve workers diagnosed with a wrMTBI reported on their RTW experiences following wrMTBIs that occurred 3-5 years prior to the time of the interview. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Participants perceived employer and workers' compensation factors as profoundly influencing their RTW experiences. Participants consistently reported that employers and workers' compensation representatives had an inadequate understanding of wrMTBI sequelae. Six of 12 participants were re-injured following their wrMTBI, with three of these injuries occurring at work. CONCLUSION: Employers, co-workers and workers' compensation representatives should be aware of wrMTBI sequelae so injured workers can receive appropriate supports and both stigmatization and re-injury can be mitigated. Greater attention to the structural and social elements of workplace and compensation environments could inform strategies to break down barriers to successful return-to-work following a wrMTBI.