Self-management interventions for work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review

Self-management interventions for work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Self-management interventions for work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review Christian Longtin, Lee-Ann Spence, Quan Nha Hong, Nathan Hutting, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8301634/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation → Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose Many individuals with musculoskeletal disorders struggle to achieve a sustainable return to work. Self-management interventions offer promising avenues to support work participation. This scoping review maps the evidence on self-management interventions for work participation among individuals with musculoskeletal disorders, examining their components, delivery methods and how their impact is assessed. Methods A scoping review was conducted in 10 databases (Academic Search Complete, AMED, SPORTDiscus, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database) from inception to July 2025. Primary studies involving working-age individuals with musculoskeletal disorders, a self-management intervention and at least one work-related outcome were included. Results Out of 8310 records, 31 studies representing 23 self-management interventions were included with a median of 10 components (range 3–16). Most studies included non-specific MSDs (n = 13, 41.9%) or low back pain (n = 8, 29%). Less than half of interventions included content specific to work (n = 10, 43%), lifestyle changes (n = 9, 39%), resource utilization (n = 8, 35%), and communication skills (n = 7, 30%). Interventions were typically delivered in person (n = 12, 52%), individually (n = 14, 61%), and with clinician involvement (n = 15, 65%), while 43% (n = 10) incorporated digital health. Most studies were outcome evaluations (n = 23, 72%), assessing work ability (n = 10, 30.4%), sick leave and return-to-work (n = 9, 39.1%), and work disability (n = 7, 30.4%). Fewer studies included process outcomes (n = 14, 45%) or participant views (n = 8, 26%). Conclusion This review revealed considerable heterogeneity in self-management components, delivery and evaluation methods. It identifies key gaps, underscoring the need for theory-driven, workplace-integrated self-management interventions to enhance their impact on work participation. Self-management Work participation Musculoskeletal disorders Occupational health Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are one of the most common causes of work disability, significantly impacting workers’ quality of life and imposing substantial social and economic burdens [ 1 – 3 ]. A considerable proportion of workers with MSD-related disabilities encounter persistent challenges in achieving sustainable return to work (RTW) despite receiving rehabilitation services [ 4 , 5 ]. Past studies indicate that between 11% and 48% of injured workers who have completed rehabilitation experience a recurrence or worsening of their work disability following a first RTW [ 6 – 9 ]. This may reflect the variable effectiveness of existing rehabilitation interventions in promoting sustainable outcomes for injured workers. Indeed, a Cochrane review found limited long-lasting effects of RTW coordination programs on work participation [ 10 ]. Self-management interventions offer promising avenues for managing signs and symptoms from MSDs, and more importantly, for supporting individuals’ work participation and ability to achieve a sustainable RTW [ 11 , 12 ]. Self-management can be broadly defined as the individual’s ability to effectively manage symptoms, treatment, and associated psychological, physical, and social challenges of their condition, as well as the lifestyle changes required [ 13 , 14 ]. Self-management interventions could help workers independently manage and reduce their disability [ 15 ], while also enabling them to leverage job leeway to modify their work tasks [ 16 ]. Additionally, self-management interventions could bridge gaps in rehabilitation services in the transition phases of RTW by equipping workers with essential skills to meet evolving work demands effectively [ 16 – 18 ]. Well-developed self-management skills have been identified as important success factors to help workers with chronic MSDs stay at work [ 19 ]. This process is further facilitated by the fact that self-management interventions are increasingly delivered through digital health [ 20 ], which can be accessed independently of clinician support. However, the existing body of literature addressing self-management interventions in work contexts remains scarce and condition-specific, predominantly centered around low back pain [ 17 , 21 , 22 ]. Existing reviews often neglect work outcomes, such as RTW, work ability, and productivity-related measures (e.g., absenteeism, presenteeism) [ 20 , 23 ]. Moreover, these studies frequently lack consensus regarding self-management definitions [ 24 ], creating challenges for clinicians attempting to implement effective self-management interventions and for workers to develop reliable self-management skills. The heterogeneity of self-management interventions, ranging from general exercise programs and educational strategies [ 25 ] to more comprehensive, tailored programs [ 26 ], further complicates the assessment of their comparative effectiveness and the identification of key components that might be driving their effect. Given these important limitations, a rigorous synthesis of available evidence on self-management interventions tailored to the work context across various MSDs is timely and highly relevant. Our objective was to examine the existing literature on self-management interventions evaluated in relation to work participation among individuals with work disabilities due to MSDs. Methods We conducted a scoping review based on Arksey and O’Malley’s framework [ 27 ] and updated recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute [ 28 ]. We chose a scoping review as it is well suited to emerging fields [ 29 ], such as the impact of self-management interventions in work settings, and enables systematic exploration of the literature, including key concepts, theories and research gaps [ 27 ]. To ensure scientific rigor in reporting, we followed the guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [ 30 ]. As this is a literature review, no ethical approval is required. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/kxpq8 ). Step 1: Identifying the research question(s) The primary research question for this review was: What self-management interventions have been evaluated in relation to work participation among individuals with work disabilities due to MSDs? We identified secondary questions to delve into specific areas of interest related to the study objective [ 28 ] and included: What are the components of self-management interventions for work participation among individuals with work disabilities due to MSDs? How are self-management interventions delivered? How is the impact of self-management interventions on work participation among individuals with MSDs evaluated? Work participation was used as a comprehensive term to capture diverse work outcomes (e.g., RTW, work ability, absenteeism, etc.) This aligns with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF), which defines participation as the involvement in life situations such as work and recognizes restrictions that may not entail full absence from work [ 31 ]. Work disability is present when workers are struggling to stay at work or return to work due to an injury or disease [ 32 ]. Work-related MSDs include all conditions affecting the musculoskeletal system that lead to work disability, such as muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, peripheral nerves and blood vessels [ 33 ]. For this review, impact evaluation refers to measured changes in work participation outcomes [ 34 ] (e.g., RTW, work ability, absenteeism), implementation outcomes [ 35 ], and participants’ perspectives, experiences and needs in relation to supporting work participation. Step 2: Identifying relevant studies We developed a preliminary search strategy in collaboration with an experienced librarian, using a concept map that included three main concepts and related keywords: 1) self-management, 2) MSDs and 3) work participation. It was adapted for each of the following bibliographic databases and searched on July 7, 2025: Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), AMED (EBSCO), SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), Medline (EBSCO), APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (OVID), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (see Appendix 1 in supplementary files). Grey literature was searched via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Google Scholar, and Google (see Appendix 2). Due to the large number of results generated by Google Scholar and Google, the first 200 results were screened for inclusion. Other sources of information included searching on research centers and organizations websites on occupational health and safety, self-management and MSDs based on the research team network and knowledge (see Appendix 3 for full list). Backward citation tracking of relevant literature reviews and all selected articles, and forward citation tracking of protocols were performed to ensure no relevant manuscript was omitted [ 36 ]. The search strategy was limited to studies in French or English, with no restrictions regarding the publication year. The search strategy was reviewed by all team members, which included experienced researchers with expertise in literature review methodology (QNH, SD), work disability (QNH, NH, CL), and self-management (CL, NH). Step 3: Study selection The Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework was used to determine the inclusion criteria for relevant documents. These criteria were: Studies including working age individuals with MSDs (population). Studies including a self-management intervention (concept). To qualify as a self-management intervention, the intervention must include knowledge acquisition and at least two of the following components: management of signs, symptoms or medication, problem solving, self-monitoring, goal setting, decision making, resources utilization, patient–healthcare provider partnership, physical activity/healthy lifestyle, or behavioral change. This definition is based on the multicomponent operational definition proposed by Jonkman et al. [ 37 ] and is intended to ensure inclusion of studies that reflect a comprehensive self-management approach. Eligible self-management interventions may be delivered by healthcare professionals, non-healthcare professionals or lay people, or may be self-directed (e.g., booklets, digital health). Interventions delivered face to face, online interventions and blended interventions were included. Both group-based as well as individual self-management education programs were eligible for inclusion. Self-management interventions embedded in broader programs (e.g., multidisciplinary or multimodal intervention) were included only if the self-management component was clearly defined and easily distinguishable. All types of primary study designs (e.g., quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) were eligible. Primary studies including work-related components in their results section (context). For example, quantitative studies had to include at least one work-related outcome such as RTW, work ability, absenteeism, presenteeism, etc. [ 34 ] and qualitative studies could report participants’ experiences and perceived impact on work participation following the self-management intervention. Documents focused solely on work-related disabilities due to mental health disorders and non-empirical documents (e.g., perspective papers, editorials) were excluded. Studies including both MSDs and mental health disorders were included only if outcomes specific to MSDs were clearly distinguishable. Literature reviews, protocols, conferences abstracts and proceedings were also excluded. The documents resulting from the search on each database were exported into Covidence ( https://www.covidence.org/ ) to remove duplicates and to screen records. First, two independent reviewers (CL, LAS) screened a random sample of 50 documents based on titles and abstracts to assess reviewers’ agreement and to ensure that eligibility criteria were relevant and clearly defined. A > 90% agreement was achieved, and discrepancies between the reviewers were discussed and clarified. Both reviewers independently screened the remaining titles and abstracts. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus, and when necessary, with a third reviewer (QNH). Documents deemed potentially eligible underwent full-text screening by both reviewers to assess for inclusion. Inter-rater agreement remained high (> 90%) throughout the selection process and peer-debriefing meetings were held regularly to discuss disagreements. When needed, the reviewers contacted study authors to obtain additional information or full-text articles. Step 4: Charting the data Data from the included studies were extracted using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). CL and LAS developed the data extraction chart. The feasibility, accuracy and relevance of the charting process was pilot tested by two independent reviewers (CL, LAS) on five retained articles containing different study designs. This pilot phase resulted in high reviewers’ agreement and led to minor revisions to the outcome section, such as a description of each outcome and how it was measured. The extracted information included general study characteristics (e.g., authors, title, year of publication, country), methodological information (e.g., objective, study design, sample size), and population characteristics (e.g., age, sex, gender, type of MSDs, work status). Information related to the components of the self-management interventions, how the intervention was delivered, and the outcomes reported were also extracted. CL and LAS independently extracted data from all included documents and discussed any discrepancies during the charting process. A third reviewer (QNH) was consulted, if necessary. Step 5: Summarizing and reporting the results We described the characteristics of the included studies (e.g., year, country, study design, type of MSD, population and work status) using descriptive statistics. To analyze the components of the self-management interventions, we conducted a deductive content analysis [ 38 , 39 ] using a priori coding framework containing 16 components developed from the literature (Table 1 ). Specifically, intervention components were coded using a structured framework informed by foundational conceptual and empirical literature on self-management, most notably the seminal work of Lorig et al. [ 14 ], who defined core self-management skills. This framework also integrated conceptual refinements from other key contributors in the field [ 11 , 13 , 16 , 24 , 40 ], reflecting the most recent literature and understanding of self-management. Components were coded as either present or absent based on the information provided by the authors. When details were missing from the main publication, we consulted study protocols and/or supplementary materials (e.g., TIDieR checklists) to complete the coding. If we could not retrieve missing information, the component was coded as absent due to insufficient detail. Table 1 Coding framework for content analysis of self-management intervention components Component Description Theoretical framework [ 17 , 23 ] Presence of an explicitly stated theory or model used to guide the development, content, and/or implementation of the SM intervention. Knowledge acquisition [ 24 ] Provision of information or educational content related to pain, condition management, health behavior change, etc. Symptoms management [ 13 , 14 , 23 ] Providing strategies to control symptoms and limitations such as pain, disability (e.g., work-related), fatigue, or other symptoms. Cognitive behavioral [ 23 , 24 ] Includes strategies derived from cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at modifying unhelpful thoughts, emotions, or behaviors to improve self-management of the condition. This includes cognitive restructuring, behavioral activation, emotional regulation, and skills to manage psychological consequences of chronic pain or disability. Lifestyle changes [13. 17, 24] Encouraging changes in diet, sleep hygiene, physical activity, etc. to support health management. Tailoring of content [ 17 , 18 , 41 ] Adapting content or strategies to individual needs, characteristics, or preferences through multiples strategies. Tailoring goes beyond general education by adjusting delivery, content, or goals based on the user’s profile, preferences, or context. Peer support [ 23 ] Use of group formats, peer mentors, or forums to enhance outcomes. Communication skills [ 13 , 24 ] Training in assertiveness, asking for help, and navigating interpersonal and/or workplace communication. Work-focused components [ 11 , 12 ] Inclusion of SM components that are explicitly tailored to the occupational context and/or application of general SM within a work-related setting. Focus is on SM skills, strategies, and resources that enable individuals to manage their condition while maintaining, returning to, or adapting their work role. Essential self-management skills [ 13 , 14 , 40 ] Problem solving Teaching a structured process to define problems, generate possible solutions, implementation and evaluation of results. Decision making Making informed decisions following the problem-solving process. Include the different steps in choice of action. Action planning Provide support in setting concrete, short-term action plans that define what, when, and how to act. Include aspects such as a formal plan of action to deal with flare-ups and setbacks. Resource utilization Teaching patients how to identify and use community, clinical, and/or workplace resources. Goal setting Establishing specific, attainable short- and intermediate-term goals to increase autonomy and motivation. Self-monitoring Tracking progress or symptoms regularly using different tools or logs. Formation of a patient–provider relationship Helping people to form partnerships with their providers by taking an active role and collaboration in the plan of care. Includes strategies, resources, or activities designed to build trust, enhance communication, and foster shared decision making between the patient/worker and provider. To examine how self-management interventions were delivered, we identified the delivery characteristics from the descriptions provided in the included studies and categorized them across multiple dimensions. These included the delivery context (e.g., in-person, online, hybrid), format (e.g., individual, group-based, or mixed), provider type (e.g., health professional, lay person, self-directed), and clinician involvement (yes/no). For interventions using digital health, we further detailed the digital modality (e.g., mobile app, website). Frequencies were calculated for each delivery category to summarize patterns across interventions. To examine how the impact of self-management interventions on work participation was evaluated, we applied a study classification adapted from Hong et al. [ 42 ]. Each study was categorized as an outcome evaluation (e.g., effectiveness), process evaluation (e.g., implementation), or views (e.g., participant experiences) study, based on the type of construct assessed (see Appendix 4). These categories were not mutually exclusive, as a single study could fall into multiple categories (e.g., an implementation-effectiveness study). We also documented the constructs assessed (e.g., work ability, acceptability) and the data collection methods used (e.g., validated questionnaires, interviews). Frequencies were reported for study types, constructs measured, and data collection methods to provide an overview of how work-related impact was assessed across the literature. Two reviewers (CL, LAS) independently coded all studies using the study classification, resolving discrepancies through regular discussions and involving a third reviewer (QNH, NH) when needed. Deviations from the initial protocol We made minor changes to the original protocol available on OSF prior to data collection. First, we revised our third secondary research question to more broadly examine how the impact of self-management interventions was evaluated in the literature, rather than focusing solely on participants’ experiences and perspectives. This change enabled us to capture a wider range of work-related outcome measures (e.g., patient and implementation outcomes). Second, we broadened our first inclusion criterion to include studies involving working-age individuals with MSDs, regardless of whether the MSDs were work-related. This decision was based on the observation from pilot testing the search strategy that the work-relatedness of MSDs was often not reported. The work participation context was still ensured by the fourth inclusion criterion, which required studies to report a work-related component in their results. These changes did not require modifications to the search strategy, as the search terms already captured the broader criteria. Third, considering the revised third research question, we decided to conduct a deductive content analysis instead of a thematic synthesis as the focus was no longer on participants’ experiences. Results Study selection We retrieved 8310 records from the search strategy. After removing duplicates and adding an additional 142 records from the grey literature and citation searching, 5379 records remained for the selection process. Of those, we retained 178 records for full-text screening. During full-text screening, we excluded 147 records, including 32 records because the interventions did not meet our definition of a self-management intervention (e.g., two components or less). In total, 31 studies were included in the review. We present the PRISMA flowchart of the selection process in Fig. 1 . Characteristics of the included studies We summarized the characteristics of the 31 included studies in Appendix 5. Most studies were conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 6, 19.4%) [ 43 – 48 ] and Denmark (n = 5, 16.1%) [ 15 , 49 – 52 ], followed by Sweden (n = 4, 12.9%) [ 53 – 56 ], the Netherlands (n = 4, 12.9%) [ 57 – 60 ], the United States (n = 4, 12.9%) [ 26 , 61 – 63 ], Australia (n = 3, 9.7%) [ 64 – 66 ], and Canada (n = 2, 6.5%) [ 18 , 67 ]. One study (3.2%) was conducted in each of the following countries: Brazil [ 68 ], Spain [ 69 ], Norway [ 15 ] and Germany [ 70 ]. The included studies were published between 2005 and 2025, with 14 (45%) since 2020. They addressed a range of MSDs, most of which were chronic in nature (> 3 months). The most reported MSDs were non-specific or multisite MSDs (n = 13, 41.9%) [ 46 , 48 – 51 , 53 , 58 – 60 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 70 ], followed by low back pain (n = 9, 29%) [ 15 , 18 , 26 , 52 , 55 , 61 , 62 , 68 ]. Osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee was addressed in two studies (6.5%) [ 54 , 56 ]. One study (3.2%) addressed lateral elbow tendinopathy [ 64 ] and one study addressed neck pain [ 55 ]. Six studies (19.4%) [ 43 , 45 , 47 , 57 , 67 , 69 ] addressed inflammatory rheumatic diseases, with half specifically targeting rheumatoid arthritis. Most studies (n = 29, 93.5%) reported the work status of participants, who were either employed or on sick leave at the time of the study. Participants represented a wide range of work sectors (e.g., healthcare, tourism, construction, etc.), job type (e.g., office-based, manual labor), and organization contexts (e.g., small and medium-sized enterprises, large organizations). Components of the self-management interventions The 31 included studies described a total of 23 distinct self-management interventions, which included a median of 10 components (range 3–16) per intervention. The components of each intervention are summarized in Fig. 2 , along with the frequency and proportion of interventions in which each component was identified. All interventions included components related to knowledge acquisition and symptom management (n = 23, 100%). Other commonly reported components were tailoring of content (n = 19, 82%), cognitive behavioral strategies (n = 18, 78%), goal setting (n = 18, 78%), self-monitoring (n = 6, 69%), problem solving (n = 15, 65%), decision making (n = 15, 65%), action planning (n = 14, 61%), and use of an explicit theoretical framework (n = 14, 61%). Fewer than half of the interventions included content specific to work (n = 10, 43%), lifestyle changes (n = 9, 39%), resource utilization (n = 8, 35%), peer support (n = 8, 35%), communication skills (n = 7, 30%), and strategies to strengthen the patient–provider relationship (n = 6, 26%). Delivery characteristics of the self-management interventions We summarized the delivery characteristics of the 23 interventions in Fig. 3 . Approximately half of the interventions were delivered in person (n = 12, 52.1%), while 10 (43.5%) were delivered remotely, and one intervention (4.3%) used a hybrid delivery model. Individual delivery was the most common format (n = 14, 61%), followed by a mixed format (n = 6, 26%), and group-only delivery in three interventions (13%). The provider type varied across interventions, with 13 (56%) interventions delivered by a health professional, one (4.3%) by a lay person and two (9%) involved a mix of health professionals and lay persons. Seven (30%) interventions were self-directed, while clinician involvement was reported in 15 interventions (65%). Ten interventions (43.4%) were delivered using a digital health modality, including web-based platforms (n = 4, 17.4%), mobile apps (n = 4, 17.4%), and mixed modalities (n = 2, 8.7%). Impact evaluation of the self-management interventions A total of 23 studies (72%) [ 15 , 26 , 43 – 46 , 49 , 50 , 52 – 57 , 60 – 64 , 67 – 70 ] were categorized as outcome evaluation studies, reporting both work-related and general patient outcome measures. We summarized the work-related constructs assessed in Fig. 4 . The most reported work-related outcomes were work ability (n = 10, 43.4%), sick leave, absenteeism and RTW (n = 9, 39.1%), work disability (n = 7, 30.4%), work productivity (n = 5, 21.7%), and presenteeism (n = 3, 13%) (Fig. 4 ). For general outcome measures, frequently reported constructs included disability and function (n = 16, 69.6%), pain intensity (n = 16, 69.6%), quality of life (n = 9, 39.1%), self-efficacy (n = 8, 34.8%), depression and anxiety (n = 7, 30.4%). See Appendix 5 for a summary of general outcomes. Fourteen (45.1%) studies [ 18 , 26 , 46 – 48 , 57 , 58 , 61 – 63 , 65 – 67 ] were categorized as process studies, with the most assessed constructs being acceptability (n = 11, 78.6%), followed by implementation and delivery (n = 8, 57.1%), appropriateness (n = 5, 35.7%) and accessibility (n = 1, 7.1%). Acceptability was evaluated via measures of satisfaction, perceived benefits, intervention coherence, and credibility. Implementation and delivery focused on intervention usability, engagement levels and adoption of self-management strategies. Appropriateness concerned the relevance and suitability of the intervention content. A mix of quantitative (e.g. closed-ended survey questions) and qualitative methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews) were used to assess process outcomes. Eight (25.8%) studies [ 26 , 47 , 48 , 51 , 58 , 59 , 65 , 66 ] were categorized as views studies, exploring participants’ perspectives (n = 4, 50%) and experiences (n = 3, 37.5%), injured workers’ needs related to staying at work and/or returning to work (n = 2, 25%), and understanding of the self-management intervention content (n = 1, 12.5%). Participants’ perspectives focused on perceived impacts of the intervention and suggestions for improvement, while experiences described participants’ reflections following participation in the intervention. Views studies predominantly used qualitative methods, including focus groups, and individual interviews. Complete details about evaluation methods by study types and constructs assessed are presented in Appendix 6. Discussion This scoping review mapped the self-management interventions for work participation among individuals with MSDs, highlighting substantial heterogeneity in intervention components, delivery formats, and evaluation approaches. Although all interventions included foundational components such as knowledge acquisition and symptom management, fewer than half incorporated work-focused content, despite all studies reporting work-related outcomes. Most interventions targeted individuals with non-specific MSDs or low back pain and included clinician involvement, though nearly half used digital health modalities and one-third were self-directed. The included studies assessed a broad range of work-related and general outcomes, most commonly work ability, sick leave and RTW, disability and pain intensity, using mainly quantitative measures, sometimes complemented by qualitative methods. Nearly half also included process outcomes such as acceptability and implementation measures. The limited inclusion of work-focused components highlights a disconnect between intervention content and targeted work outcomes. Although all studies assessed work-related variables, few addressed determinants of sustainable work participation, such as workplace problem solving [ 71 , 72 ], job accommodations [ 71 , 73 ], support navigating the compensation system [ 65 , 71 , 74 ] or effective communication in the workplace [ 71 – 73 ]. Only 30% of interventions included content related to communication skills. This gap may reflect the generic use of theoretical underpinnings. While 60% of interventions reported a theoretical framework, most relied on broad behavioral models (e.g., cognitive behavioral theory) that did not articulate the program theory linking intervention components to improved work outcomes. A recent trial [ 15 ] among workers found no effect on work outcomes, attributing this to the lack of job-specific content and advocating for workplace-based self-management interventions. Similarly, a meta-analysis of self-management programs for low back pain reported greater improvements when interventions were guided by a theoretical model [ 23 ]. These findings suggest that the lack of a work-adapted theoretical underpinning may contribute to the disconnect between intervention content and work outcomes. Work-focused conceptual frameworks, such as the Work Disability Prevention Model by Loisel et al. [ 75 ], can address this gap by identifying modifiable factors influencing work disability across personal, workplace, healthcare and compensation domains, thereby providing a rationale for how self-management interventions may enhance work participation. Within such framework, the margin of manoeuvre [ 76 ] represent a potential mechanism through which improved self-management skills promote sustained work participation. This concept refers to the workers’ flexibility to continually adapt work activities in response to changing job demands and personal capacities [ 76 , 77 ]. Enhanced self-management skills may foster the margin of manoeuvre at work [ 18 ] by helping workers manage symptoms, adjust tasks, and negotiate job demands [ 16 ]. An adequate margin of manoeuvre has been identified as a key facilitator of sustainable RTW among individuals who have been on long-term sick leave due to MSDs [ 76 ]. Overall, the limited work-focused content and theoretical grounding of current self-management interventions likely constrain their effectiveness on work outcomes. Embedding them within work-focused frameworks with clear program theory may clarify and strengthen their impact on work participation. Substantial variation in intervention components highlights the inconsistent application of self-management principles and underscores the need for a core component set for self-management in occupational settings. Included interventions differed widely in composition (range 3–16 components), and 32 studies were excluded for not meeting our self-management criteria (i.e., fewer than three components), most combining only knowledge acquisition and exercise. This mirrors findings from Jonkman et al. [ 37 ], who showed that applying a multicomponent, operationalized definition of self-management substantially reduced the number of eligible studies, revealing persistent inconsistencies in how self-management is defined and applied. Such inconsistency echoes previous research demonstrating that self-management support from clinicians often focuses on education and exercise, lacking the skill-building aspects central to self-management [ 21 , 78 – 80 ]. In contrast to patient education, self-management aims to develop transferable skills enabling individuals to independently manage their condition, such as problem solving, decision making, self-monitoring, etc. [ 81 , 82 ] Yet, many included interventions lacked these essential skills, including resource utilization (36%), patient–provider partnership (26%), and action planning (61%), further highlighting inconsistent integration of self-management principles. Establishing a standardized core component set for work-related self-management interventions could promote consistency in design and reporting, enable comparison across studies, and facilitate knowledge mobilization to clinicians, helping them support patients in developing self-management skills. The increasing use of digital delivery formats offers important accessibility and scalability benefits but often lacks integration with workplace systems and occupational support. Over 40% of the included interventions used digital health modalities, reflecting a shift toward autonomous and scalable models that can reduce inequities in access to work-related care [ 83 , 84 ]. Evidence from literature reviews suggests that digital interventions can improve pain and disability, particularly when aligned with occupational settings [ 20 , 84 ]. However, most interventions in our study had limited involvement of workplace actors, such as employers, supervisors, and compensation representatives. Tailoring of interventions also tended to focus on individual symptoms rather than workplace factors (e.g., job demands), a limitation echoed in a recent review on digital interventions in employment settings [ 20 ]. Active involvement of occupational actors is essential to optimize implementation and work participation outcomes [ 72 , 85 ]. One study found that workers and employer representatives expressed positive attitudes toward digital self-management tools for supporting sustainable RTW, though successful adoption depended on ease of use, adequate implementation support, and employer endorsement [ 86 ]. Although digital self-management interventions are increasingly adopted, realizing their full potential to improve work participation will require stronger collaboration with occupational actors to support implementation in work environments. Strengths and Limitations The strengths of this review lie in its rigorous methodology, comprehensive scope, and conceptual contribution. By applying a clearly operationalized, multicomponent definition of self-management, we ensured inclusion of interventions that truly reflected self-management principles. Compared with recent reviews limited to low back pain [ 17 ] or specific delivery formats [ 20 , 83 , 84 ], this study encompassed a broader range of MSDs, delivery modalities, and study designs, providing a more comprehensive view of how self-management interventions for work participation are delivered, evaluated, and experienced. The conceptual mapping of self-management components represents a key strength, as the evidence-informed coding framework allowed us to identify essential self-management components and revealed notable gaps across interventions. This approach provides a clearer understanding of how self-management is currently conceptualized and operationalized in the literature and highlights underrepresented elements that warrant greater attention in future intervention design. Some limitations should be acknowledged. Incomplete reporting of intervention content may have led to underestimation of certain components and/or to the exclusion of studies that could have met the multicomponent self-management definition. However, these risks were mitigated through independent comprehensive data extraction procedures (e.g., consultation of TiDier checklist items, related publications, and study protocols) and author contact. Second, identifying the specific components involved some interpretive judgment, which was minimized through independent coding and consensus with a third reviewer. Finally, as no formal quality appraisal was conducted and intervention effectiveness was not analyzed, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Implication and Future Research This review offers important implications for research, practice, and policy on self-management interventions to improve work participation among individuals with MSDs. By comprehensively mapping self-management components, the findings provide structured guidance for developing interventions that support workers’ ability to self-manage their condition. Clinicians can use these insights to strengthen workers’ self-management skills to foster work participation. For researchers and policymakers, this review offers a foundation for establishing a core component set to guide the design, evaluation, and dissemination of work-focused self-management interventions. Future research should test process variables, including potential mediators such as the margin of manoeuvre, to clarify how improved self-management skills enhance work participation. The marked heterogeneity in work outcomes emphasizes the need to adopt standardized core outcome measures for work participation, such as those proposed by Ravinskaya et al. [ 34 ]. Based on our findings, we recommend that future self-management interventions for workers be grounded in work-focused theoretical frameworks that articulate clear program theories linking self-management skills to work outcomes and include active involvement of occupational actors throughout their development and implementation. Co-designed digital interventions integrating worker and employer perspectives may provide a scalable, contextually relevant approach to enhance self-management. Yet, it remains unclear which components drive improved outcomes, making this a priority for future research to inform more efficient intervention design. Conclusion This scoping review underscores the need for stronger alignment between self-management interventions and the complex realities of sustaining work participation among workers with MSDs. The findings also highlight substantial heterogeneity in how self-management interventions are designed and operationalized, pointing to the need for a core component set that truly reflects self-management principles and support more consistent intervention development and reporting. The review also emphasizes the importance of standardized work participation outcome measures and active collaboration with occupational actors. Advancing these priorities will promote tailored, theory-driven self-management interventions that more effectively support workers in managing their conditions and maintaining meaningful employment. Declarations Competing interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest. Ethical approval: Not applicable Funding: CL is supported by a postdoctoral scholarship from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS). QNH is supported by a Junior 1 Research Fellowship of the FRQS. Author Contribution All authors contributed to the study conception and design. CL, LAS, and QNH participated in the development of the search strategy and the selection of papers. CL and LAS extracted the data. All authors participated in the synthesis of data. CL wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CL and LAS prepared the figures. All authors reviewed and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgement We thank Mireille Léger-Rousseau, research librarian at the Université de Sherbrooke, for assistance with the search strategy. Data Availability The data generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396:1204–22. Macpherson RA, Lane TJ, Collie A, McLeod CB. Age, sex, and the changing disability burden of compensated work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Canada and Australia. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:758. Schofield DJ, Shrestha RN, Cunich M, Tanton R, Kelly S, Passey ME, Veerman LJ. Lost productive life years caused by chronic conditions in Australians aged 45–64 years, 2010–2030. Med J Aust. 2015;203:260–260. Kulmala J, Luoma A, Koskinen L. Able or unable to work? Life trajectory after severe occupational injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41:2192–8. Jensen C, Jensen OK, Nielsen CV. Sustainability of return to work in sick-listed employees with low-back pain. Two-year follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:156–156. Berecki-Gisolf J, Clay FJ, Collie A, McClure RJ. Predictors of Sustained Return to Work After Work-Related Injury or Disease: Insights from Workers’ Compensation Claims Records. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22:283–91. Marras WS, Ferguson Sa, Burr D, Schabo P, Maronitis A. Low back pain recurrence in occupational environments. Spine. 2007;32:2387–97. Wasiak R, Pransky G, Verma S, Webster B. Recurrence of low back pain: definition-sensitivity analysis using administrative data. Spine. 2003;28:2283–91. Wasiak R, Verma S, Pransky G, Webster B. Risk Factors for Recurrent Episodes of Care and Work Disability: Case of Low Back Pain. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:68–76. Vogel N, Schandelmaier S, Zumbrunn T, Ebrahim S, De Boer WE, Busse JW, Kunz R. Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011618.pub2 . Shaw WS, Tveito TH, Geehern-Lavoie M, Huang Y-H, Nicholas MK, Reme SE, Wagner G, Pransky G. Adapting principles of chronic pain self-management to the workplace. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:694–703. Johnston V, Jull G, Sheppard DM, Ellis N. Applying principles of self-management to facilitate workers to return to or remain at work with a chronic musculoskeletal condition. Man Therap. 2013;18:274–80. Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:177–87. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Annals Behav medicine: publication Soc Behav Med. 2003;26:1–7. Rasmussen CDN, Sandal LF, Holtermann A, Stochkendahl MJ, Mork PJ, Søgaard K. Effect of a smartphone self-management digital support system for low-back pain (selfBACK) among workers with high physical work demands – secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2024;50:613–21. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Johnston V. Addressing occupational factors in the management of low back pain: implications for physical therapist practice. Phys Ther. 2011;91:777–89. Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Longtin C, Coutu MF, Gaudreault N, Kairy D, Nastasia I, Leonard G. What are the essential components of a self-management program designed to help workers with chronic low back pain stay at work? A mapping review. Eur J Physiotherapy. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/21679169.2020.1822443 . Longtin C, Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Coutu M-F. A logic model for a self-management program designed to help workers with persistent and disabling low back pain stay at work. WOR. 2020;67:395–406. de Vries HJ, Brouwer S, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB, Reneman MF. Staying at work with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study of workers’ experiences. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:126–36. Chen M, Sparkes V, Sheeran L. Systematic review of digital health interventions to support self-management of low back pain in the workplace. Digit HEALTH. 2025;11:20552076251336281. Van Den Heuvel C, Van Der Horst J, Winkelhorst E, Roelofsen E, Hutting N. Experiences, barriers and needs of physiotherapists with regard to providing self-management support to people with low back pain: A qualitative study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021;56:102462. Sandal LF, Bach K, Øverås CK, et al. Effectiveness of App-Delivered, Tailored Self-management Support for Adults With Lower Back Pain–Related Disability: A self BACK Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:1288. Du S, Hu L, Dong J, Xu G, Chen X, Jin S, Zhang H, Yin H. Self-management program for chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100:37–49. Van De Velde D, De Zutter F, Satink T, Costa U, Janquart S, Senn D, De Vriendt P. Delineating the concept of self-management in chronic conditions: a concept analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e027775. Del Pozo-Cruz B, Adsuar JC, Parraca J, Del Pozo-Cruz J, Moreno A, Gusi N. A Web-Based Intervention to Improve and Prevent Low Back Pain Among Office Workers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2012;42:831–D6. Irvine AB, Russell H, Manocchia M, Mino DE, Glassen TC, Morgan R, Gau JM, Birney AJ, Ary DV. Mobile-web app to self-manage low back pain: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e1–1. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2020;18:2119–26. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Switzerland: Geneva; 2001. Loisel P, Anema JR. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. New York: Springer, [2013]; 2013. Institut de recherche Robert–Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). (2025) Annexe C – Problèmes de santé visés. Retour au travail – L’incapacité et le retour au travail. Ravinskaya M, Verbeek JH, Langendam M, Madan I, Verstappen SMM, Kunz R, Hulshof CTJ, Hoving JL. Which outcomes should always be measured in intervention studies for improving work participation for people with a health problem? An international multistakeholder Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for Work participation (COS for Work). BMJ Open. 2023;13:e069174. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:65–76. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. Jonkman NH, Schuurmans MJ, Jaarsma T, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Hoes AW, Trappenburg JCA. Self-management interventions: Proposal and validation of a new operational definition. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;80:34–42. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88. Hutting N, Johnston V, Staal JB, Heerkens YF. Promoting the Use of Self-management Strategies for People With Persistent Musculoskeletal Disorders: The Role of Physical Therapists. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2019;49:212–5. Longtin C, Coutu M-F, Tousignant-Laflamme Y. (2019) Deciphering programs for optimal self-management of persistent musculoskeletal-related pain and disability - Clinical implications for PTs. Physiother Theory Pract 1–9. Hong QN, Rees R, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J. Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: A case study. Res Synthesis Methods. 2020;11:795–811. Bachmair E-M, Martin K, Aucott L, et al. Remotely delivered cognitive behavioural and personalised exercise interventions for fatigue severity and impact in inflammatory rheumatic diseases (LIFT): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022;4:e534–45. Geraghty AWA, Becque T, Roberts LC et al. (2024) Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness. The Lancet Rheumatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00086-9 Manning VL, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Scott DL, Choy E, Hurley MV, Bearne LM. Economic evaluation of a brief Education, Self-management and Upper Limb Exercise Training in People with Rheumatoid Arthritis (EXTRA) programme: a trial-based analysis. Rheumatology. 2015;54:302–9. Hurley MV, Irwin S, Erwin J, Gibney A, Hallett R, Carter A, Woolf A. Delivering NICE Joint Pain Advice in the workplace. Musculoskelet Care. 2021;19:555–63. Battista S, Parker J, Ching A, et al. WORKWELL process evaluation: qualitative data analyses of the participant interviews at 12- and 36-month follow-ups. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2025;9:rkaf034. Erwin J, Irwin S, Hallett R, Woolf A, Carter A, Hurley MV. Participants experience of the Joint Pain Advice in the workplace programme. Musculoskelet Care. 2022;20:214–25. Andersen LN, Juul-Kristensen B, Sørensen TL, Herborg LG, Roessler KK, Søgaard K. Efficacy of Tailored Physical Activity or Chronic Pain Self-Management Programme on return to work for sick-listed citizens: A 3-month randomised controlled trial. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43:694–703. Andersen LN, Juul-Kristensen B, Sørensen TL, Herborg LG, Roessler KK, Søgaard K. Longer term follow-up on effects of Tailored Physical Activity or Chronic Pain Self-Management Programme on return-to-work: A randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48:887–92. Andersen LN, Kohberg M, Herborg LG, Søgaard K, Roessler KK. Here we’re all in the same boat - a qualitative study of group based rehabilitation for sick-listed citizens with chronic pain. Scand J Psychol. 2014;55:333–42. Kongstad LP, Øverås CK, Skovsgaard CV, Sandal LF, Hartvigsen J, Søgaard K, Mork PJ, Stochkendahl MJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of app-delivered self-management support (selfBACK) in addition to usual care for people with low back pain in Denmark. BMJ open. 2024;14:e086800. Calner T, Nordin C, Eriksson MK, Nyberg L, Gard G, Michaelson P. Effects of a self-guided, web‐based activity programme for patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain in primary healthcare: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pain. 2017;21:1110–20. Jönsson T, Eek F, Dell’Isola A, Dahlberg LE, Ekvall Hansson E. The Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis Program: Outcomes after evidence-based education and exercise delivered nationwide in Sweden. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0222657. Linton SJ, Boersma K, Jansson M, Sv??rd L, Botvalde M. The Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral and Physical Therapy Preventive Interventions on Pain-Related Sick Leave: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin J Pain. 2005;21:109–19. Östlind E, Eek F, Stigmar K, Sant’Anna A, Hansson EE. Promoting work ability with a wearable activity tracker in working age individuals with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:1–10. Hoving JL, Zoer I, Van Der Meer M, Van Der Straaten Y, Logtenberg-Rutten C, Kraak-Put S, De Vries N, Tak P, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen M. E-health to improve work functioning in employees with rheumatoid arthritis in rheumatology practice: A feasibility study. Scand J Rheumatol. 2014;43:481–7. Hutting N, Detaille S, Heerkens Y, Engels J, Staal J, Nijhuis-van der Sanden M. Experiences of Participants in a Self-Management Program for Employees with Complaints of the Arm, Neck or Shoulder (CANS): A Mixed Methods Study. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27:35–48. Hutting N, Detaille SI, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, Staal JB, Nijhuis-van Der Sanden MW. (2015a) Development of a self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, and/or shoulder: an intervention mapping approach. JMDH 307. Hutting N, Staal JB, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, Detaille SI, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG. Effect evaluation of a self-management programme for employees with complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder: a randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2015b;72:852–61. Dunleavy K, Kane A, Coffman A, Reidy J, Bishop MD. Outcomes of Participatory Ergonomics and Self-management in Commercial Clam Farmers with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Feasibility Study. J Agromed. 2022;27:217–31. Slater MA, Weickgenant AL, Greenberg MA, et al. Preventing Progression to Chronicity in First Onset, Subacute Low Back Pain: An Exploratory Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:545–52. Bailey JF, Agarwal V, Zheng P, Smuck M, Fredericson M, Kennedy DJ, Krauss J. Digital Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: 10,000 Participant Longitudinal Cohort Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e18250. Tran T, Harris C, Ciccarelli M. The impact of a hand therapy workplace-based educational approach on the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy: A randomized controlled study. J Hand Ther. 2023;36:45–59. Johnston V, Strong J, Gargett S, Jull G, Ellis N. Enhancing the vocational outcomes of people with chronic disabilities caused by a musculoskeletal condition: Development and evaluation of content of self-management training modules. Work. 2014;49:455–64. Sheppard D, Gargett S, MacKenzie A, Jull G, Johnston V, Strong J, Battersby M, Ellis N. Implementing a Self-Management Intervention for People with a Chronic Compensable Musculoskeletal Injury in a Workers Compensation Context: A Process Evaluation. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25:412–22. Lacaille D, White MA, Rogers PA, Backman CL, Gignac MAM, Esdaile JM. A proof-of-concept study of the Employment and Arthritis: Making it Work program. Arthritis Care Res. 2008;59:1647–55. Marins EF, Primo TT, Vasconcelos BB, et al. Effectiveness of an app-delivered, self-management exercise program in public safety workers with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Phys Ther. 2025;29:101232. Rodríguez Sánchez-Laulhé P, Luque-Romero L, Barrero-García F, Biscarri-Carbonero Á, Blanquero J, Suero-Pineda A, Heredia-Rizo A. An Exercise and Educational and Self-management Program Delivered With a Smartphone App (CareHand) in Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hands. randomized Controlled Trial. 2022;10:e35462. Markus M, Euhus A, Bethge M. Effectiveness of behavioural medical rehabilitation under real-life conditions in Germany: A propensity-score matched analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2022;54:jrm00248. Hagendijk ME, Zipfel N, Melles M, Van Der Wees PJ, Hulshof CTJ, Zwaan E, Van Der Burg-Vermeulen SJ, Hoving JL. Patients’ Needs Regarding Work-Focused Healthcare: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. J Occup Rehabil. 2025;35:450–68. Amundsen PA, Irgens PMS, Burton K, Malmberg-Heimonen I, Froud R. Obstacles and facilitators of return to work among people with persistent pain who receive benefit payments: an in-depth interview study. BMC Public Health. 2025;25:3532. Shaw WS, McLellan RK, Besen E, Namazi S, Nicholas MK, Dugan AG, Tveito TH. A Worksite Self-management Program for Workers with Chronic Health Conditions Improves Worker Engagement and Retention, but not Workplace Function. J Occup Rehabil. 2022;32:77–86. Cullen KL, Irvin E, Collie A, et al. Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28:1–15. Loisel P, Durand M-J, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, Larivière C, Tremblay C. Disability Prevention: New Paradigm for the Management of Occupational Back Pain. Disease Manage Health Outcomes. 2001;9:351–60. Durand M-J, Vézina N, Richard M-C. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Concept of Margin of Manoeuvre in Return to Work - Handbook of Return to Work: From Research to Practice. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2016. pp. 53–65. O’Hagan F. Work, organisational practices, and margin of manoeuver during work reintegration. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41:172–81. Hutting N, Oswald W, Staal JB, Heerkens YF. Self-management support for people with non-specific low back pain: A qualitative survey among physiotherapists and exercise therapists. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;50:102269. Brunnekreef JJ, Feleus A, Miedema HS, Staal JB, Hutting N. Experiences and needs of physiotherapists and exercise therapists regarding the management of working people with complaints of the arm, neck and shoulder (CANS): A focus group study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2022;62:102644. Monk C, Sole G, Perry M. Physiotherapists’ attitudes and beliefs about self-management as part of their management for low back pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2023;64:102727. McGowan PT. (2012) Self-Management Education and Support in Chronic Disease Management. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 39:307–325. Lorig KR. Self-management education: More than a Nice Extra. Med Care. 2003;41:699–701. Nicholl BI, Sandal LF, Stochkendahl MJ, et al. Digital Support Interventions for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e179. Blake H, Chaplin WJ, Gupta A. The effectiveness of digital interventions for self-management of chronic pain in employment settings: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2024;151:36–48. Froud R, Amundsen PA, Bartys S, et al. Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43:2750–7. Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Longtin C, Coutu M-F, Gaudreault N, Kairy D, Nastasia I, Léonard G. Self-management programs to ensure sustainable return to work following long-term sick leave due to low back pain: A sequential qualitative study. WORK. 2023;75:729–39. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementarymaterials.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 07 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 28 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 14 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 08 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 07 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8301634","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":558659346,"identity":"c7e7a3fb-e98d-4fb2-b37b-e816267ed05b","order_by":0,"name":"Christian Longtin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"McGill University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christian","middleName":"","lastName":"Longtin","suffix":""},{"id":558659347,"identity":"d9844c0a-897f-4bce-b786-b00c0d581af6","order_by":1,"name":"Lee-Ann Spence","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université de Sherbrooke","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lee-Ann","middleName":"","lastName":"Spence","suffix":""},{"id":558659348,"identity":"d1a12c95-c465-4f48-af15-3f62dfacf4e4","order_by":2,"name":"Quan Nha Hong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Montreal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Quan","middleName":"Nha","lastName":"Hong","suffix":""},{"id":558659350,"identity":"fa167a28-5f92-4c80-b66c-e881c7cfc698","order_by":3,"name":"Nathan Hutting","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"HAN University of Applied Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nathan","middleName":"","lastName":"Hutting","suffix":""},{"id":558659352,"identity":"560bbeba-8726-4a19-94e4-95f7a4fa4029","order_by":4,"name":"Simon Décary","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université de Sherbrooke","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Simon","middleName":"","lastName":"Décary","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-07 19:08:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8301634/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8301634/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-026-10389-5","type":"published","date":"2026-04-30T15:57:27+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":98180821,"identity":"26e2bb7f-a305-4328-b2fd-dd93a2028184","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":662039,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscriptfinal.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/0f42a678b0e615f8845d8295.docx"},{"id":98180935,"identity":"2e3c50ae-70b8-4b50-bc56-fbefc0b1abb7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:24","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":371988,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/c6d24229d6478a4612c78998.jpg"},{"id":98180819,"identity":"a5a86f56-81b3-47d8-96fa-4d1a44c1f698","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":112121,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/729a4f61b288155152bcb129.jpg"},{"id":98180824,"identity":"5a365cac-baf7-4ba2-a4de-df824cc31e54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":94514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/ed61f58d81334c33d742d68c.jpg"},{"id":98431335,"identity":"2219bc22-e980-47fe-9094-4f30402dbcd8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:47:33","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71231,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/26307d1abc424bc22146ffe9.jpg"},{"id":98180892,"identity":"9983590e-e8aa-4c5e-a11c-ec5e5a02c3cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"json","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"fe0cae7ca16f4e4e9f9573b7e4a88c51.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/bbfcb2fea2f9802c486ff002.json"},{"id":98180829,"identity":"8c80c6ee-1ea7-456c-97b0-b24fcd91266b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":437269,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterials.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/452209a862fd6653e0e6d1dd.pdf"},{"id":98180826,"identity":"2c626495-b1f2-4348-8455-74718f48716c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"xml","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":185861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"fe0cae7ca16f4e4e9f9573b7e4a88c511enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/3c68fc584501a500c9804eda.xml"},{"id":98432002,"identity":"ae65bce1-eb2e-4cbb-8be3-651ba3295e0e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:48:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":371988,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/b17305b3536beaba7fa45a29.jpg"},{"id":98180858,"identity":"c78c3b5f-9a58-4c68-938e-33a503121742","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":112121,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/f50c01c88d6c69b170a382da.jpg"},{"id":98180894,"identity":"cf36d57e-6ed3-4643-9d7a-86dc44633557","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":94514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/2d449012fcdcd095f61fdf56.jpg"},{"id":98180898,"identity":"fbf8c10f-bf33-4778-8561-26c1c036ccfa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71231,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/251a516ce70d602f93aedfe3.jpg"},{"id":98180899,"identity":"fd5fb5d9-7be8-412e-88d2-ad8eb1b1b69b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":272438,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/73eb310bd23e6f6ef5dde95f.jpeg"},{"id":98180897,"identity":"95a0c238-6de1-4c02-bb5a-d78e4c394b03","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":112121,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/5cececa941301d68e0f13f44.jpeg"},{"id":98431318,"identity":"eec1470b-91a1-487c-bc36-32a41c7f5a86","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:47:30","extension":"jpeg","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":94514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/ca9be0f49a10a7758fe9e32b.jpeg"},{"id":98180902,"identity":"dc0a4ff7-767a-4094-8594-e93bf7976e91","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"jpeg","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71231,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Fig4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/bf85abf9c20ffc5fd5130121.jpeg"},{"id":98431827,"identity":"01f1df98-fd2c-4992-ac33-6db2afc726cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:48:27","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":85286,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/f97b64292a0460aa7a0e10f3.png"},{"id":98180843,"identity":"10146f41-da7f-40a9-abcd-90e77c786b11","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":45509,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/15f2261387d8fd88bc667859.png"},{"id":98431428,"identity":"b7588070-a540-4280-b00f-47f77ca71b95","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:47:40","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":36711,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/1e690a98092e52936d3608a5.png"},{"id":98180825,"identity":"d06a7388-64a6-440b-8007-82f2f24094f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24796,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/73872bed71753e1ad713fb53.png"},{"id":98180827,"identity":"264f9eec-1752-4a31-84b0-1ce031a0d2df","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"png","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":70070,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/d995e132c254a1479425380f.png"},{"id":98180904,"identity":"6f765966-7a79-4144-9a8c-96b6d9a7f711","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"png","order_by":21,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":45509,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/1bd6ca41003ce04c4356408b.png"},{"id":98180903,"identity":"08345228-73fe-4058-bd68-f4a3d19cf179","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"png","order_by":22,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":36711,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/a0ddd6f5927f5a725fdcaf96.png"},{"id":98180900,"identity":"9d9e3a05-683b-424f-9f4a-ed21b2d5d58c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"png","order_by":23,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24796,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/422d908fe073634853981123.png"},{"id":98180828,"identity":"422b5f77-5133-48e5-891e-0d5c6cee7b5d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"xml","order_by":24,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":185985,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"fe0cae7ca16f4e4e9f9573b7e4a88c511structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/1d254e54767098b0b71f9d6e.xml"},{"id":98180830,"identity":"9561393a-a0c4-42f8-9b24-94bee082d779","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"html","order_by":25,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":198842,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/755cf2a1b598f95f710f85b3.html"},{"id":98180818,"identity":"569431ad-e1e2-4df0-b6c2-397d30531eb6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":371988,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePRISMA flowchart\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/92836f84ee766e59d44638de.jpg"},{"id":98431368,"identity":"4cb1357b-becb-4093-af46-6391ecf92924","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:47:35","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":112121,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSelf-management interventions components (n=23 interventions from 31 studies)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/b3d663c2198c4c2d94682468.jpg"},{"id":98431388,"identity":"83c73573-4c1b-4802-afde-762a34984870","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:47:37","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":94514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDelivery characteristics of the self-management interventions (n=23 interventions)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/66af2704c44f358651e4045d.jpg"},{"id":98180896,"identity":"07c401dc-e259-4428-addb-5961972f5cd0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:02","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71231,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWork-related constructs assessed in the outcome evaluation studies (n=23)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/25e626c9c8f61c009b7cdb51.jpg"},{"id":108437639,"identity":"7b5ffa9f-5c92-4a40-8e83-857299376d8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-04 16:01:25","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1000931,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/ac78da3c-8657-49e4-951c-164546f34922.pdf"},{"id":98180817,"identity":"936517c3-c4c1-4f3f-be6a-41ef71a85b7c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-15 01:08:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":437269,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterials.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8301634/v1/dbe2e8fac694192db30739cc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Self-management interventions for work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMusculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are one of the most common causes of work disability, significantly impacting workers\u0026rsquo; quality of life and imposing substantial social and economic burdens [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. A considerable proportion of workers with MSD-related disabilities encounter persistent challenges in achieving sustainable return to work (RTW) despite receiving rehabilitation services [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Past studies indicate that between 11% and 48% of injured workers who have completed rehabilitation experience a recurrence or worsening of their work disability following a first RTW [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7 CR8\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. This may reflect the variable effectiveness of existing rehabilitation interventions in promoting sustainable outcomes for injured workers. Indeed, a Cochrane review found limited long-lasting effects of RTW coordination programs on work participation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Self-management interventions offer promising avenues for managing signs and symptoms from MSDs, and more importantly, for supporting individuals\u0026rsquo; work participation and ability to achieve a sustainable RTW [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-management can be broadly defined as the individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to effectively manage symptoms, treatment, and associated psychological, physical, and social challenges of their condition, as well as the lifestyle changes required [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Self-management interventions could help workers independently manage and reduce their disability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e], while also enabling them to leverage job leeway to modify their work tasks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, self-management interventions could bridge gaps in rehabilitation services in the transition phases of RTW by equipping workers with essential skills to meet evolving work demands effectively [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Well-developed self-management skills have been identified as important success factors to help workers with chronic MSDs stay at work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. This process is further facilitated by the fact that self-management interventions are increasingly delivered through digital health [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], which can be accessed independently of clinician support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the existing body of literature addressing self-management interventions in work contexts remains scarce and condition-specific, predominantly centered around low back pain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Existing reviews often neglect work outcomes, such as RTW, work ability, and productivity-related measures (e.g., absenteeism, presenteeism) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, these studies frequently lack consensus regarding self-management definitions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], creating challenges for clinicians attempting to implement effective self-management interventions and for workers to develop reliable self-management skills. The heterogeneity of self-management interventions, ranging from general exercise programs and educational strategies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] to more comprehensive, tailored programs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], further complicates the assessment of their comparative effectiveness and the identification of key components that might be driving their effect. Given these important limitations, a rigorous synthesis of available evidence on self-management interventions tailored to the work context across various MSDs is timely and highly relevant. Our objective was to examine the existing literature on self-management interventions evaluated in relation to work participation among individuals with work disabilities due to MSDs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a scoping review based on Arksey and O\u0026rsquo;Malley\u0026rsquo;s framework [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] and updated recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. We chose a scoping review as it is well suited to emerging fields [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], such as the impact of self-management interventions in work settings, and enables systematic exploration of the literature, including key concepts, theories and research gaps [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. To ensure scientific rigor in reporting, we followed the guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. As this is a literature review, no ethical approval is required. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/kxpq8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/kxpq8\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStep 1: Identifying the research question(s)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe primary research question for this review was: \u003cem\u003eWhat self-management interventions have been evaluated in relation to work participation among individuals with work disabilities due to MSDs?\u003c/em\u003e We identified secondary questions to delve into specific areas of interest related to the study objective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] and included:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the components of self-management interventions for work participation among individuals with work disabilities due to MSDs?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow are self-management interventions delivered?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow is the impact of self-management interventions on work participation among individuals with MSDs evaluated?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork participation was used as a comprehensive term to capture diverse work outcomes (e.g., RTW, work ability, absenteeism, etc.) This aligns with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF), which defines participation as the involvement in life situations such as work and recognizes restrictions that may not entail full absence from work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Work disability is present when workers are struggling to stay at work or return to work due to an injury or disease [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Work-related MSDs include all conditions affecting the musculoskeletal system that lead to work disability, such as muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, peripheral nerves and blood vessels [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. For this review, impact evaluation refers to measured changes in work participation outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] (e.g., RTW, work ability, absenteeism), implementation outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], and participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives, experiences and needs in relation to supporting work participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 2: Identifying relevant studies\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe developed a preliminary search strategy in collaboration with an experienced librarian, using a concept map that included three main concepts and related keywords: 1) self-management, 2) MSDs and 3) work participation. It was adapted for each of the following bibliographic databases and searched on July 7, 2025: Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), AMED (EBSCO), SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), Medline (EBSCO), APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (OVID), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (see Appendix 1 in supplementary files). Grey literature was searched via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Google Scholar, and Google (see Appendix 2). Due to the large number of results generated by Google Scholar and Google, the first 200 results were screened for inclusion. Other sources of information included searching on research centers and organizations websites on occupational health and safety, self-management and MSDs based on the research team network and knowledge (see Appendix 3 for full list). Backward citation tracking of relevant literature reviews and all selected articles, and forward citation tracking of protocols were performed to ensure no relevant manuscript was omitted [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. The search strategy was limited to studies in French or English, with no restrictions regarding the publication year. The search strategy was reviewed by all team members, which included experienced researchers with expertise in literature review methodology (QNH, SD), work disability (QNH, NH, CL), and self-management (CL, NH).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 3: Study selection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework was used to determine the inclusion criteria for relevant documents. These criteria were:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies including working age individuals with MSDs (population).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies including a self-management intervention (concept). To qualify as a self-management intervention, the intervention must include knowledge acquisition and at least two of the following components: management of signs, symptoms or medication, problem solving, self-monitoring, goal setting, decision making, resources utilization, patient\u0026ndash;healthcare provider partnership, physical activity/healthy lifestyle, or behavioral change. This definition is based on the multicomponent operational definition proposed by Jonkman et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] and is intended to ensure inclusion of studies that reflect a comprehensive self-management approach. Eligible self-management interventions may be delivered by healthcare professionals, non-healthcare professionals or lay people, or may be self-directed (e.g., booklets, digital health). Interventions delivered face to face, online interventions and blended interventions were included. Both group-based as well as individual self-management education programs were eligible for inclusion. Self-management interventions embedded in broader programs (e.g., multidisciplinary or multimodal intervention) were included only if the self-management component was clearly defined and easily distinguishable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll types of primary study designs (e.g., quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) were eligible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary studies including work-related components in their results section (context). For example, quantitative studies had to include at least one work-related outcome such as RTW, work ability, absenteeism, presenteeism, etc. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] and qualitative studies could report participants\u0026rsquo; experiences and perceived impact on work participation following the self-management intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDocuments focused solely on work-related disabilities due to mental health disorders and non-empirical documents (e.g., perspective papers, editorials) were excluded. Studies including both MSDs and mental health disorders were included only if outcomes specific to MSDs were clearly distinguishable. Literature reviews, protocols, conferences abstracts and proceedings were also excluded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe documents resulting from the search on each database were exported into Covidence (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.covidence.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.covidence.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) to remove duplicates and to screen records. First, two independent reviewers (CL, LAS) screened a random sample of 50 documents based on titles and abstracts to assess reviewers\u0026rsquo; agreement and to ensure that eligibility criteria were relevant and clearly defined. A\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;90% agreement was achieved, and discrepancies between the reviewers were discussed and clarified. Both reviewers independently screened the remaining titles and abstracts. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus, and when necessary, with a third reviewer (QNH). Documents deemed potentially eligible underwent full-text screening by both reviewers to assess for inclusion. Inter-rater agreement remained high (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;90%) throughout the selection process and peer-debriefing meetings were held regularly to discuss disagreements. When needed, the reviewers contacted study authors to obtain additional information or full-text articles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 4: Charting the data\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData from the included studies were extracted using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). CL and LAS developed the data extraction chart. The feasibility, accuracy and relevance of the charting process was pilot tested by two independent reviewers (CL, LAS) on five retained articles containing different study designs. This pilot phase resulted in high reviewers\u0026rsquo; agreement and led to minor revisions to the outcome section, such as a description of each outcome and how it was measured. The extracted information included general study characteristics (e.g., authors, title, year of publication, country), methodological information (e.g., objective, study design, sample size), and population characteristics (e.g., age, sex, gender, type of MSDs, work status). Information related to the components of the self-management interventions, how the intervention was delivered, and the outcomes reported were also extracted. CL and LAS independently extracted data from all included documents and discussed any discrepancies during the charting process. A third reviewer (QNH) was consulted, if necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 5: Summarizing and reporting the results\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe described the characteristics of the included studies (e.g., year, country, study design, type of MSD, population and work status) using descriptive statistics. To analyze the components of the self-management interventions, we conducted a deductive content analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] using a priori coding framework containing 16 components developed from the literature (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, intervention components were coded using a structured framework informed by foundational conceptual and empirical literature on self-management, most notably the seminal work of Lorig et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], who defined core self-management skills. This framework also integrated conceptual refinements from other key contributors in the field [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e], reflecting the most recent literature and understanding of self-management. Components were coded as either present or absent based on the information provided by the authors. When details were missing from the main publication, we consulted study protocols and/or supplementary materials (e.g., TIDieR checklists) to complete the coding. If we could not retrieve missing information, the component was coded as absent due to insufficient detail.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoding framework for content analysis of self-management intervention components\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComponent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical framework [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePresence of an explicitly stated theory or model used to guide the development, content, and/or implementation of the SM intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge acquisition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvision of information or educational content related to pain, condition management, health behavior change, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSymptoms management [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProviding strategies to control symptoms and limitations such as pain, disability (e.g., work-related), fatigue, or other symptoms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive behavioral [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncludes strategies derived from cognitive behavioral therapy aimed at modifying unhelpful thoughts, emotions, or behaviors to improve self-management of the condition. This includes cognitive restructuring, behavioral activation, emotional regulation, and skills to manage psychological consequences of chronic pain or disability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLifestyle changes [13. 17, 24]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEncouraging changes in diet, sleep hygiene, physical activity, etc. to support health management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTailoring of content [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdapting content or strategies to individual needs, characteristics, or preferences through multiples strategies. Tailoring goes beyond general education by adjusting delivery, content, or goals based on the user\u0026rsquo;s profile, preferences, or context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer support [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse of group formats, peer mentors, or forums to enhance outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunication skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining in assertiveness, asking for help, and navigating interpersonal and/or workplace communication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork-focused components [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInclusion of SM components that are explicitly tailored to the occupational context and/or application of general SM within a work-related setting. Focus is on SM skills, strategies, and resources that enable individuals to manage their condition while maintaining, returning to, or adapting their work role.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEssential self-management skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProblem solving\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching a structured process to define problems, generate possible solutions, implementation and evaluation of results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDecision making\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaking informed decisions following the problem-solving process. Include the different steps in choice of action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAction planning\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvide support in setting concrete, short-term action plans that define what, when, and how to act. Include aspects such as a formal plan of action to deal with flare-ups and setbacks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResource utilization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching patients how to identify and use community, clinical, and/or workplace resources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGoal setting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablishing specific, attainable short- and intermediate-term goals to increase autonomy and motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-monitoring\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTracking progress or symptoms regularly using different tools or logs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFormation of a patient\u0026ndash;provider relationship\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHelping people to form partnerships with their providers by taking an active role and collaboration in the plan of care. Includes strategies, resources, or activities designed to build trust, enhance communication, and foster shared decision making between the patient/worker and provider.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine how self-management interventions were delivered, we identified the delivery characteristics from the descriptions provided in the included studies and categorized them across multiple dimensions. These included the delivery context (e.g., in-person, online, hybrid), format (e.g., individual, group-based, or mixed), provider type (e.g., health professional, lay person, self-directed), and clinician involvement (yes/no). For interventions using digital health, we further detailed the digital modality (e.g., mobile app, website). Frequencies were calculated for each delivery category to summarize patterns across interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine how the impact of self-management interventions on work participation was evaluated, we applied a study classification adapted from Hong et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. Each study was categorized as an outcome evaluation (e.g., effectiveness), process evaluation (e.g., implementation), or views (e.g., participant experiences) study, based on the type of construct assessed (see Appendix 4). These categories were not mutually exclusive, as a single study could fall into multiple categories (e.g., an implementation-effectiveness study). We also documented the constructs assessed (e.g., work ability, acceptability) and the data collection methods used (e.g., validated questionnaires, interviews). Frequencies were reported for study types, constructs measured, and data collection methods to provide an overview of how work-related impact was assessed across the literature. Two reviewers (CL, LAS) independently coded all studies using the study classification, resolving discrepancies through regular discussions and involving a third reviewer (QNH, NH) when needed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDeviations from the initial protocol\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe made minor changes to the original protocol available on OSF prior to data collection. First, we revised our third secondary research question to more broadly examine how the impact of self-management interventions was evaluated in the literature, rather than focusing solely on participants\u0026rsquo; experiences and perspectives. This change enabled us to capture a wider range of work-related outcome measures (e.g., patient and implementation outcomes).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, we broadened our first inclusion criterion to include studies involving working-age individuals with MSDs, regardless of whether the MSDs were work-related. This decision was based on the observation from pilot testing the search strategy that the work-relatedness of MSDs was often not reported. The work participation context was still ensured by the fourth inclusion criterion, which required studies to report a work-related component in their results. These changes did not require modifications to the search strategy, as the search terms already captured the broader criteria. Third, considering the revised third research question, we decided to conduct a deductive content analysis instead of a thematic synthesis as the focus was no longer on participants\u0026rsquo; experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy selection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe retrieved 8310 records from the search strategy. After removing duplicates and adding an additional 142 records from the grey literature and citation searching, 5379 records remained for the selection process. Of those, we retained 178 records for full-text screening. During full-text screening, we excluded 147 records, including 32 records because the interventions did not meet our definition of a self-management intervention (e.g., two components or less). In total, 31 studies were included in the review. We present the PRISMA flowchart of the selection process in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCharacteristics of the included studies\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe summarized the characteristics of the 31 included studies in Appendix 5. Most studies were conducted in the United Kingdom (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6, 19.4%) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR44 CR45 CR46 CR47\" citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e] and Denmark (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, 16.1%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR50 CR51\" citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], followed by Sweden (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, 12.9%) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR54 CR55\" citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e], the Netherlands (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, 12.9%) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR58 CR59\" citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e], the United States (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, 12.9%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR62\" citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e], Australia (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, 9.7%) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR65\" citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e], and Canada (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, 6.5%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e]. One study (3.2%) was conducted in each of the following countries: Brazil [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e], Spain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e], Norway [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] and Germany [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]. The included studies were published between 2005 and 2025, with 14 (45%) since 2020. They addressed a range of MSDs, most of which were chronic in nature (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3 months). The most reported MSDs were non-specific or multisite MSDs (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13, 41.9%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR49 CR50\" citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR59\" citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e], followed by low back pain (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9, 29%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]. Osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee was addressed in two studies (6.5%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. One study (3.2%) addressed lateral elbow tendinopathy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e] and one study addressed neck pain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. Six studies (19.4%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e] addressed inflammatory rheumatic diseases, with half specifically targeting rheumatoid arthritis. Most studies (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29, 93.5%) reported the work status of participants, who were either employed or on sick leave at the time of the study. Participants represented a wide range of work sectors (e.g., healthcare, tourism, construction, etc.), job type (e.g., office-based, manual labor), and organization contexts (e.g., small and medium-sized enterprises, large organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eComponents of the self-management interventions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 31 included studies described a total of 23 distinct self-management interventions, which included a median of 10 components (range 3\u0026ndash;16) per intervention. The components of each intervention are summarized in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, along with the frequency and proportion of interventions in which each component was identified. All interventions included components related to knowledge acquisition and symptom management (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23, 100%). Other commonly reported components were tailoring of content (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19, 82%), cognitive behavioral strategies (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18, 78%), goal setting (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18, 78%), self-monitoring (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6, 69%), problem solving (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15, 65%), decision making (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15, 65%), action planning (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14, 61%), and use of an explicit theoretical framework (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14, 61%). Fewer than half of the interventions included content specific to work (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10, 43%), lifestyle changes (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9, 39%), resource utilization (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 35%), peer support (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 35%), communication skills (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7, 30%), and strategies to strengthen the patient\u0026ndash;provider relationship (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6, 26%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDelivery characteristics of the self-management interventions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe summarized the delivery characteristics of the 23 interventions in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Approximately half of the interventions were delivered in person (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12, 52.1%), while 10 (43.5%) were delivered remotely, and one intervention (4.3%) used a hybrid delivery model. Individual delivery was the most common format (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14, 61%), followed by a mixed format (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6, 26%), and group-only delivery in three interventions (13%). The provider type varied across interventions, with 13 (56%) interventions delivered by a health professional, one (4.3%) by a lay person and two (9%) involved a mix of health professionals and lay persons. Seven (30%) interventions were self-directed, while clinician involvement was reported in 15 interventions (65%). Ten interventions (43.4%) were delivered using a digital health modality, including web-based platforms (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, 17.4%), mobile apps (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, 17.4%), and mixed modalities (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, 8.7%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImpact evaluation of the self-management interventions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 23 studies (72%) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR44 CR45\" citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR53 CR54 CR55 CR56\" citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR61 CR62 CR63\" citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR68 CR69\" citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e] were categorized as outcome evaluation studies, reporting both work-related and general patient outcome measures. We summarized the work-related constructs assessed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The most reported work-related outcomes were work ability (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10, 43.4%), sick leave, absenteeism and RTW (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9, 39.1%), work disability (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7, 30.4%), work productivity (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, 21.7%), and presenteeism (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, 13%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). For general outcome measures, frequently reported constructs included disability and function (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16, 69.6%), pain intensity (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16, 69.6%), quality of life (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9, 39.1%), self-efficacy (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 34.8%), depression and anxiety (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7, 30.4%). See Appendix 5 for a summary of general outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourteen (45.1%) studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR47\" citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR62\" citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR66\" citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e] were categorized as process studies, with the most assessed constructs being acceptability (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11, 78.6%), followed by implementation and delivery (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 57.1%), appropriateness (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, 35.7%) and accessibility (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, 7.1%). Acceptability was evaluated via measures of satisfaction, perceived benefits, intervention coherence, and credibility. Implementation and delivery focused on intervention usability, engagement levels and adoption of self-management strategies. Appropriateness concerned the relevance and suitability of the intervention content. A mix of quantitative (e.g. closed-ended survey questions) and qualitative methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews) were used to assess process outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEight (25.8%) studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e] were categorized as views studies, exploring participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, 50%) and experiences (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, 37.5%), injured workers\u0026rsquo; needs related to staying at work and/or returning to work (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, 25%), and understanding of the self-management intervention content (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, 12.5%). Participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives focused on perceived impacts of the intervention and suggestions for improvement, while experiences described participants\u0026rsquo; reflections following participation in the intervention. Views studies predominantly used qualitative methods, including focus groups, and individual interviews. Complete details about evaluation methods by study types and constructs assessed are presented in Appendix 6.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e This scoping review mapped the self-management interventions for work participation among individuals with MSDs, highlighting substantial heterogeneity in intervention components, delivery formats, and evaluation approaches. Although all interventions included foundational components such as knowledge acquisition and symptom management, fewer than half incorporated work-focused content, despite all studies reporting work-related outcomes. Most interventions targeted individuals with non-specific MSDs or low back pain and included clinician involvement, though nearly half used digital health modalities and one-third were self-directed. The included studies assessed a broad range of work-related and general outcomes, most commonly work ability, sick leave and RTW, disability and pain intensity, using mainly quantitative measures, sometimes complemented by qualitative methods. Nearly half also included process outcomes such as acceptability and implementation measures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe limited inclusion of work-focused components highlights a disconnect between intervention content and targeted work outcomes. Although all studies assessed work-related variables, few addressed determinants of sustainable work participation, such as workplace problem solving [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e], job accommodations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e], support navigating the compensation system [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e] or effective communication in the workplace [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR72\" citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e]. Only 30% of interventions included content related to communication skills. This gap may reflect the generic use of theoretical underpinnings. While 60% of interventions reported a theoretical framework, most relied on broad behavioral models (e.g., cognitive behavioral theory) that did not articulate the program theory linking intervention components to improved work outcomes. A recent trial [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] among workers found no effect on work outcomes, attributing this to the lack of job-specific content and advocating for workplace-based self-management interventions. Similarly, a meta-analysis of self-management programs for low back pain reported greater improvements when interventions were guided by a theoretical model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. These findings suggest that the lack of a work-adapted theoretical underpinning may contribute to the disconnect between intervention content and work outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork-focused conceptual frameworks, such as the Work Disability Prevention Model by Loisel et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e], can address this gap by identifying modifiable factors influencing work disability across personal, workplace, healthcare and compensation domains, thereby providing a rationale for how self-management interventions may enhance work participation. Within such framework, the margin of manoeuvre [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e] represent a potential mechanism through which improved self-management skills promote sustained work participation. This concept refers to the workers\u0026rsquo; flexibility to continually adapt work activities in response to changing job demands and personal capacities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]. Enhanced self-management skills may foster the margin of manoeuvre at work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] by helping workers manage symptoms, adjust tasks, and negotiate job demands [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. An adequate margin of manoeuvre has been identified as a key facilitator of sustainable RTW among individuals who have been on long-term sick leave due to MSDs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall, the limited work-focused content and theoretical grounding of current self-management interventions likely constrain their effectiveness on work outcomes. Embedding them within work-focused frameworks with clear program theory may clarify and strengthen their impact on work participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubstantial variation in intervention components highlights the inconsistent application of self-management principles and underscores the need for a core component set for self-management in occupational settings. Included interventions differed widely in composition (range 3\u0026ndash;16 components), and 32 studies were excluded for not meeting our self-management criteria (i.e., fewer than three components), most combining only knowledge acquisition and exercise. This mirrors findings from Jonkman et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], who showed that applying a multicomponent, operationalized definition of self-management substantially reduced the number of eligible studies, revealing persistent inconsistencies in how self-management is defined and applied. Such inconsistency echoes previous research demonstrating that self-management support from clinicians often focuses on education and exercise, lacking the skill-building aspects central to self-management [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR79\" citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast to patient education, self-management aims to develop transferable skills enabling individuals to independently manage their condition, such as problem solving, decision making, self-monitoring, etc. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e] Yet, many included interventions lacked these essential skills, including resource utilization (36%), patient\u0026ndash;provider partnership (26%), and action planning (61%), further highlighting inconsistent integration of self-management principles. Establishing a standardized core component set for work-related self-management interventions could promote consistency in design and reporting, enable comparison across studies, and facilitate knowledge mobilization to clinicians, helping them support patients in developing self-management skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe increasing use of digital delivery formats offers important accessibility and scalability benefits but often lacks integration with workplace systems and occupational support. Over 40% of the included interventions used digital health modalities, reflecting a shift toward autonomous and scalable models that can reduce inequities in access to work-related care [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e]. Evidence from literature reviews suggests that digital interventions can improve pain and disability, particularly when aligned with occupational settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e]. However, most interventions in our study had limited involvement of workplace actors, such as employers, supervisors, and compensation representatives. Tailoring of interventions also tended to focus on individual symptoms rather than workplace factors (e.g., job demands), a limitation echoed in a recent review on digital interventions in employment settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Active involvement of occupational actors is essential to optimize implementation and work participation outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e]. One study found that workers and employer representatives expressed positive attitudes toward digital self-management tools for supporting sustainable RTW, though successful adoption depended on ease of use, adequate implementation support, and employer endorsement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e]. Although digital self-management interventions are increasingly adopted, realizing their full potential to improve work participation will require stronger collaboration with occupational actors to support implementation in work environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strengths of this review lie in its rigorous methodology, comprehensive scope, and conceptual contribution. By applying a clearly operationalized, multicomponent definition of self-management, we ensured inclusion of interventions that truly reflected self-management principles. Compared with recent reviews limited to low back pain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] or specific delivery formats [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e], this study encompassed a broader range of MSDs, delivery modalities, and study designs, providing a more comprehensive view of how self-management interventions for work participation are delivered, evaluated, and experienced. The conceptual mapping of self-management components represents a key strength, as the evidence-informed coding framework allowed us to identify essential self-management components and revealed notable gaps across interventions. This approach provides a clearer understanding of how self-management is currently conceptualized and operationalized in the literature and highlights underrepresented elements that warrant greater attention in future intervention design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome limitations should be acknowledged. Incomplete reporting of intervention content may have led to underestimation of certain components and/or to the exclusion of studies that could have met the multicomponent self-management definition. However, these risks were mitigated through independent comprehensive data extraction procedures (e.g., consultation of TiDier checklist items, related publications, and study protocols) and author contact. Second, identifying the specific components involved some interpretive judgment, which was minimized through independent coding and consensus with a third reviewer. Finally, as no formal quality appraisal was conducted and intervention effectiveness was not analyzed, the findings should be interpreted with caution.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplication and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This review offers important implications for research, practice, and policy on self-management interventions to improve work participation among individuals with MSDs. By comprehensively mapping self-management components, the findings provide structured guidance for developing interventions that support workers\u0026rsquo; ability to self-manage their condition. Clinicians can use these insights to strengthen workers\u0026rsquo; self-management skills to foster work participation. For researchers and policymakers, this review offers a foundation for establishing a core component set to guide the design, evaluation, and dissemination of work-focused self-management interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research should test process variables, including potential mediators such as the margin of manoeuvre, to clarify how improved self-management skills enhance work participation. The marked heterogeneity in work outcomes emphasizes the need to adopt standardized core outcome measures for work participation, such as those proposed by Ravinskaya et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Based on our findings, we recommend that future self-management interventions for workers be grounded in work-focused theoretical frameworks that articulate clear program theories linking self-management skills to work outcomes and include active involvement of occupational actors throughout their development and implementation. Co-designed digital interventions integrating worker and employer perspectives may provide a scalable, contextually relevant approach to enhance self-management. Yet, it remains unclear which components drive improved outcomes, making this a priority for future research to inform more efficient intervention design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review underscores the need for stronger alignment between self-management interventions and the complex realities of sustaining work participation among workers with MSDs. The findings also highlight substantial heterogeneity in how self-management interventions are designed and operationalized, pointing to the need for a core component set that truly reflects self-management principles and support more consistent intervention development and reporting. The review also emphasizes the importance of standardized work participation outcome measures and active collaboration with occupational actors. Advancing these priorities will promote tailored, theory-driven self-management interventions that more effectively support workers in managing their conditions and maintaining meaningful employment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors report no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCL is supported by a postdoctoral scholarship from the Fonds de Recherche du Qu\u0026eacute;bec \u0026ndash; Sant\u0026eacute; (FRQS). QNH is supported by a Junior 1 Research Fellowship of the FRQS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the study conception and design. CL, LAS, and QNH participated in the development of the search strategy and the selection of papers. CL and LAS extracted the data. All authors participated in the synthesis of data. CL wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CL and LAS prepared the figures. All authors reviewed and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe thank Mireille L\u0026eacute;ger-Rousseau, research librarian at the Universit\u0026eacute; de Sherbrooke, for assistance with the search strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990\u0026ndash;2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396:1204\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacpherson RA, Lane TJ, Collie A, McLeod CB. Age, sex, and the changing disability burden of compensated work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Canada and Australia. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:758.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchofield DJ, Shrestha RN, Cunich M, Tanton R, Kelly S, Passey ME, Veerman LJ. Lost productive life years caused by chronic conditions in Australians aged 45\u0026ndash;64 years, 2010\u0026ndash;2030. Med J Aust. 2015;203:260\u0026ndash;260.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKulmala J, Luoma A, Koskinen L. Able or unable to work? Life trajectory after severe occupational injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41:2192\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJensen C, Jensen OK, Nielsen CV. Sustainability of return to work in sick-listed employees with low-back pain. Two-year follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:156\u0026ndash;156.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerecki-Gisolf J, Clay FJ, Collie A, McClure RJ. Predictors of Sustained Return to Work After Work-Related Injury or Disease: Insights from Workers\u0026rsquo; Compensation Claims Records. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22:283\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarras WS, Ferguson Sa, Burr D, Schabo P, Maronitis A. Low back pain recurrence in occupational environments. Spine. 2007;32:2387\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWasiak R, Pransky G, Verma S, Webster B. Recurrence of low back pain: definition-sensitivity analysis using administrative data. Spine. 2003;28:2283\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWasiak R, Verma S, Pransky G, Webster B. Risk Factors for Recurrent Episodes of Care and Work Disability: Case of Low Back Pain. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:68\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVogel N, Schandelmaier S, Zumbrunn T, Ebrahim S, De Boer WE, Busse JW, Kunz R. Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2017. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011618.pub2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/14651858.CD011618.pub2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShaw WS, Tveito TH, Geehern-Lavoie M, Huang Y-H, Nicholas MK, Reme SE, Wagner G, Pransky G. Adapting principles of chronic pain self-management to the workplace. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:694\u0026ndash;703.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnston V, Jull G, Sheppard DM, Ellis N. Applying principles of self-management to facilitate workers to return to or remain at work with a chronic musculoskeletal condition. Man Therap. 2013;18:274\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48:177\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Annals Behav medicine: publication Soc Behav Med. 2003;26:1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRasmussen CDN, Sandal LF, Holtermann A, Stochkendahl MJ, Mork PJ, S\u0026oslash;gaard K. Effect of a smartphone self-management digital support system for low-back pain (selfBACK) among workers with high physical work demands \u0026ndash; secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2024;50:613\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShaw WS, Main CJ, Johnston V. Addressing occupational factors in the management of low back pain: implications for physical therapist practice. Phys Ther. 2011;91:777\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTousignant-Laflamme Y, Longtin C, Coutu MF, Gaudreault N, Kairy D, Nastasia I, Leonard G. What are the essential components of a self-management program designed to help workers with chronic low back pain stay at work? A mapping review. Eur J Physiotherapy. 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/21679169.2020.1822443\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/21679169.2020.1822443\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLongtin C, Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Coutu M-F. A logic model for a self-management program designed to help workers with persistent and disabling low back pain stay at work. WOR. 2020;67:395\u0026ndash;406.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Vries HJ, Brouwer S, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB, Reneman MF. Staying at work with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study of workers\u0026rsquo; experiences. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:126\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen M, Sparkes V, Sheeran L. Systematic review of digital health interventions to support self-management of low back pain in the workplace. Digit HEALTH. 2025;11:20552076251336281.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Den Heuvel C, Van Der Horst J, Winkelhorst E, Roelofsen E, Hutting N. Experiences, barriers and needs of physiotherapists with regard to providing self-management support to people with low back pain: A qualitative study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021;56:102462.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSandal LF, Bach K, \u0026Oslash;ver\u0026aring;s CK, et al. Effectiveness of App-Delivered, Tailored Self-management Support for Adults With Lower Back Pain\u0026ndash;Related Disability: A self BACK Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:1288.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDu S, Hu L, Dong J, Xu G, Chen X, Jin S, Zhang H, Yin H. Self-management program for chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100:37\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan De Velde D, De Zutter F, Satink T, Costa U, Janquart S, Senn D, De Vriendt P. Delineating the concept of self-management in chronic conditions: a concept analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e027775.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDel Pozo-Cruz B, Adsuar JC, Parraca J, Del Pozo-Cruz J, Moreno A, Gusi N. A Web-Based Intervention to Improve and Prevent Low Back Pain Among Office Workers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2012;42:831\u0026ndash;D6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIrvine AB, Russell H, Manocchia M, Mino DE, Glassen TC, Morgan R, Gau JM, Birney AJ, Ary DV. Mobile-web app to self-manage low back pain: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e1\u0026ndash;1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArksey H, O\u0026rsquo;Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2020;18:2119\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColquhoun HL, Levac D, O\u0026rsquo;Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Switzerland: Geneva; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoisel P, Anema JR. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. New York: Springer, [2013]; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInstitut de recherche Robert\u0026ndash;Sauv\u0026eacute; en sant\u0026eacute; et en s\u0026eacute;curit\u0026eacute; du travail (IRSST). (2025) Annexe C \u0026ndash; Probl\u0026egrave;mes de sant\u0026eacute; vis\u0026eacute;s. Retour au travail \u0026ndash; L\u0026rsquo;incapacit\u0026eacute; et le retour au travail.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRavinskaya M, Verbeek JH, Langendam M, Madan I, Verstappen SMM, Kunz R, Hulshof CTJ, Hoving JL. Which outcomes should always be measured in intervention studies for improving work participation for people with a health problem? An international multistakeholder Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for Work participation (COS for Work). BMJ Open. 2023;13:e069174.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eProctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:65\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevac D, Colquhoun H, O\u0026rsquo;Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJonkman NH, Schuurmans MJ, Jaarsma T, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Hoes AW, Trappenburg JCA. Self-management interventions: Proposal and validation of a new operational definition. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;80:34\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElo S, Kyng\u0026auml;s H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHutting N, Johnston V, Staal JB, Heerkens YF. Promoting the Use of Self-management Strategies for People With Persistent Musculoskeletal Disorders: The Role of Physical Therapists. J Orthop Sports Phys Therapy. 2019;49:212\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLongtin C, Coutu M-F, Tousignant-Laflamme Y. (2019) Deciphering programs for optimal self-management of persistent musculoskeletal-related pain and disability - Clinical implications for PTs. Physiother Theory Pract 1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong QN, Rees R, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J. Variations of mixed methods reviews approaches: A case study. Res Synthesis Methods. 2020;11:795\u0026ndash;811.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBachmair E-M, Martin K, Aucott L, et al. Remotely delivered cognitive behavioural and personalised exercise interventions for fatigue severity and impact in inflammatory rheumatic diseases (LIFT): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022;4:e534\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeraghty AWA, Becque T, Roberts LC et al. (2024) Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness. The Lancet Rheumatology. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00086-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00086-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManning VL, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Scott DL, Choy E, Hurley MV, Bearne LM. Economic evaluation of a brief Education, Self-management and Upper Limb Exercise Training in People with Rheumatoid Arthritis (EXTRA) programme: a trial-based analysis. Rheumatology. 2015;54:302\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHurley MV, Irwin S, Erwin J, Gibney A, Hallett R, Carter A, Woolf A. Delivering NICE Joint Pain Advice in the workplace. Musculoskelet Care. 2021;19:555\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBattista S, Parker J, Ching A, et al. WORKWELL process evaluation: qualitative data analyses of the participant interviews at 12- and 36-month follow-ups. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2025;9:rkaf034.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErwin J, Irwin S, Hallett R, Woolf A, Carter A, Hurley MV. Participants experience of the Joint Pain Advice in the workplace programme. Musculoskelet Care. 2022;20:214\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersen LN, Juul-Kristensen B, S\u0026oslash;rensen TL, Herborg LG, Roessler KK, S\u0026oslash;gaard K. Efficacy of Tailored Physical Activity or Chronic Pain Self-Management Programme on return to work for sick-listed citizens: A 3-month randomised controlled trial. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43:694\u0026ndash;703.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersen LN, Juul-Kristensen B, S\u0026oslash;rensen TL, Herborg LG, Roessler KK, S\u0026oslash;gaard K. Longer term follow-up on effects of Tailored Physical Activity or Chronic Pain Self-Management Programme on return-to-work: A randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48:887\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersen LN, Kohberg M, Herborg LG, S\u0026oslash;gaard K, Roessler KK. Here we\u0026rsquo;re all in the same boat - a qualitative study of group based rehabilitation for sick-listed citizens with chronic pain. Scand J Psychol. 2014;55:333\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKongstad LP, \u0026Oslash;ver\u0026aring;s CK, Skovsgaard CV, Sandal LF, Hartvigsen J, S\u0026oslash;gaard K, Mork PJ, Stochkendahl MJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of app-delivered self-management support (selfBACK) in addition to usual care for people with low back pain in Denmark. BMJ open. 2024;14:e086800.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCalner T, Nordin C, Eriksson MK, Nyberg L, Gard G, Michaelson P. Effects of a self-guided, web‐based activity programme for patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain in primary healthcare: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pain. 2017;21:1110\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJ\u0026ouml;nsson T, Eek F, Dell\u0026rsquo;Isola A, Dahlberg LE, Ekvall Hansson E. The Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis Program: Outcomes after evidence-based education and exercise delivered nationwide in Sweden. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0222657.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLinton SJ, Boersma K, Jansson M, Sv??rd L, Botvalde M. The Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral and Physical Therapy Preventive Interventions on Pain-Related Sick Leave: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin J Pain. 2005;21:109\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;stlind E, Eek F, Stigmar K, Sant\u0026rsquo;Anna A, Hansson EE. Promoting work ability with a wearable activity tracker in working age individuals with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoving JL, Zoer I, Van Der Meer M, Van Der Straaten Y, Logtenberg-Rutten C, Kraak-Put S, De Vries N, Tak P, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen M. E-health to improve work functioning in employees with rheumatoid arthritis in rheumatology practice: A feasibility study. Scand J Rheumatol. 2014;43:481\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHutting N, Detaille S, Heerkens Y, Engels J, Staal J, Nijhuis-van der Sanden M. Experiences of Participants in a Self-Management Program for Employees with Complaints of the Arm, Neck or Shoulder (CANS): A Mixed Methods Study. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27:35\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHutting N, Detaille SI, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, Staal JB, Nijhuis-van Der Sanden MW. (2015a) Development of a self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, and/or shoulder: an intervention mapping approach. JMDH 307.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHutting N, Staal JB, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, Detaille SI, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG. Effect evaluation of a self-management programme for employees with complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder: a randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2015b;72:852\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunleavy K, Kane A, Coffman A, Reidy J, Bishop MD. Outcomes of Participatory Ergonomics and Self-management in Commercial Clam Farmers with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Feasibility Study. J Agromed. 2022;27:217\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlater MA, Weickgenant AL, Greenberg MA, et al. Preventing Progression to Chronicity in First Onset, Subacute Low Back Pain: An Exploratory Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:545\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBailey JF, Agarwal V, Zheng P, Smuck M, Fredericson M, Kennedy DJ, Krauss J. Digital Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: 10,000 Participant Longitudinal Cohort Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e18250.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran T, Harris C, Ciccarelli M. The impact of a hand therapy workplace-based educational approach on the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy: A randomized controlled study. J Hand Ther. 2023;36:45\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnston V, Strong J, Gargett S, Jull G, Ellis N. Enhancing the vocational outcomes of people with chronic disabilities caused by a musculoskeletal condition: Development and evaluation of content of self-management training modules. Work. 2014;49:455\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheppard D, Gargett S, MacKenzie A, Jull G, Johnston V, Strong J, Battersby M, Ellis N. Implementing a Self-Management Intervention for People with a Chronic Compensable Musculoskeletal Injury in a Workers Compensation Context: A Process Evaluation. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25:412\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLacaille D, White MA, Rogers PA, Backman CL, Gignac MAM, Esdaile JM. A proof-of-concept study of the Employment and Arthritis: Making it Work program. Arthritis Care Res. 2008;59:1647\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarins EF, Primo TT, Vasconcelos BB, et al. Effectiveness of an app-delivered, self-management exercise program in public safety workers with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Phys Ther. 2025;29:101232.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez S\u0026aacute;nchez-Laulh\u0026eacute; P, Luque-Romero L, Barrero-Garc\u0026iacute;a F, Biscarri-Carbonero \u0026Aacute;, Blanquero J, Suero-Pineda A, Heredia-Rizo A. An Exercise and Educational and Self-management Program Delivered With a Smartphone App (CareHand) in Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hands. randomized Controlled Trial. 2022;10:e35462.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkus M, Euhus A, Bethge M. Effectiveness of behavioural medical rehabilitation under real-life conditions in Germany: A propensity-score matched analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2022;54:jrm00248.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHagendijk ME, Zipfel N, Melles M, Van Der Wees PJ, Hulshof CTJ, Zwaan E, Van Der Burg-Vermeulen SJ, Hoving JL. Patients\u0026rsquo; Needs Regarding Work-Focused Healthcare: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. J Occup Rehabil. 2025;35:450\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmundsen PA, Irgens PMS, Burton K, Malmberg-Heimonen I, Froud R. Obstacles and facilitators of return to work among people with persistent pain who receive benefit payments: an in-depth interview study. BMC Public Health. 2025;25:3532.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShaw WS, McLellan RK, Besen E, Namazi S, Nicholas MK, Dugan AG, Tveito TH. A Worksite Self-management Program for Workers with Chronic Health Conditions Improves Worker Engagement and Retention, but not Workplace Function. J Occup Rehabil. 2022;32:77\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCullen KL, Irvin E, Collie A, et al. Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoisel P, Durand M-J, Berthelette D, V\u0026eacute;zina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, Larivi\u0026egrave;re C, Tremblay C. Disability Prevention: New Paradigm for the Management of Occupational Back Pain. Disease Manage Health Outcomes. 2001;9:351\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDurand M-J, V\u0026eacute;zina N, Richard M-C. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Concept of Margin of Manoeuvre in Return to Work - Handbook of Return to Work: From Research to Practice. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2016. pp. 53\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Hagan F. Work, organisational practices, and margin of manoeuver during work reintegration. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41:172\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHutting N, Oswald W, Staal JB, Heerkens YF. Self-management support for people with non-specific low back pain: A qualitative survey among physiotherapists and exercise therapists. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;50:102269.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrunnekreef JJ, Feleus A, Miedema HS, Staal JB, Hutting N. Experiences and needs of physiotherapists and exercise therapists regarding the management of working people with complaints of the arm, neck and shoulder (CANS): A focus group study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2022;62:102644.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMonk C, Sole G, Perry M. Physiotherapists\u0026rsquo; attitudes and beliefs about self-management as part of their management for low back pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2023;64:102727.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGowan PT. (2012) Self-Management Education and Support in Chronic Disease Management. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 39:307\u0026ndash;325.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLorig KR. Self-management education: More than a Nice Extra. Med Care. 2003;41:699\u0026ndash;701.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicholl BI, Sandal LF, Stochkendahl MJ, et al. Digital Support Interventions for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e179.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlake H, Chaplin WJ, Gupta A. The effectiveness of digital interventions for self-management of chronic pain in employment settings: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2024;151:36\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFroud R, Amundsen PA, Bartys S, et al. Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43:2750\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTousignant-Laflamme Y, Longtin C, Coutu M-F, Gaudreault N, Kairy D, Nastasia I, L\u0026eacute;onard G. Self-management programs to ensure sustainable return to work following long-term sick leave due to low back pain: A sequential qualitative study. WORK. 2023;75:729\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-occupational-rehabilitation","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"joor","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation](https://www.springer.com/journal/10926)","snPcode":"10926","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10926/3","title":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Self-management, Work participation, Musculoskeletal disorders, Occupational health","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8301634/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8301634/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePurpose\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany individuals with musculoskeletal disorders struggle to achieve a sustainable return to work. Self-management interventions offer promising avenues to support work participation. This scoping review maps the evidence on self-management interventions for work participation among individuals with musculoskeletal disorders, examining their components, delivery methods and how their impact is assessed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA scoping review was conducted in 10 databases (Academic Search Complete, AMED, SPORTDiscus, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database) from inception to July 2025. Primary studies involving working-age individuals with musculoskeletal disorders, a self-management intervention and at least one work-related outcome were included.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOut of 8310 records, 31 studies representing 23 self-management interventions were included with a median of 10 components (range 3\u0026ndash;16). Most studies included non-specific MSDs (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13, 41.9%) or low back pain (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 29%). Less than half of interventions included content specific to work (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10, 43%), lifestyle changes (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9, 39%), resource utilization (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 35%), and communication skills (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7, 30%). Interventions were typically delivered in person (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12, 52%), individually (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14, 61%), and with clinician involvement (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15, 65%), while 43% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10) incorporated digital health. Most studies were outcome evaluations (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23, 72%), assessing work ability (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10, 30.4%), sick leave and return-to-work (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9, 39.1%), and work disability (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7, 30.4%). Fewer studies included process outcomes (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14, 45%) or participant views (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8, 26%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis review revealed considerable heterogeneity in self-management components, delivery and evaluation methods. It identifies key gaps, underscoring the need for theory-driven, workplace-integrated self-management interventions to enhance their impact on work participation.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Self-management interventions for work participation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a scoping review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-15 01:07:54","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8301634/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-07T16:42:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-28T18:13:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-14T12:20:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"316320598590119976421937466774562390291","date":"2025-12-17T16:30:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"278695782765859710703254261183516248172","date":"2025-12-15T10:57:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"31178537821591016635571675528119976304","date":"2025-12-14T04:59:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"140544045383927735464448719324894693771","date":"2025-12-12T15:54:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-08T21:40:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-08T06:35:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-08T06:33:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","date":"2025-12-07T19:00:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-occupational-rehabilitation","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"joor","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation](https://www.springer.com/journal/10926)","snPcode":"10926","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10926/3","title":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8a5f6e62-493a-497e-9f87-3d06c0eea8c0","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 15th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-04T16:00:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-8301634","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-026-10389-5","journal":{"identity":"journal-of-occupational-rehabilitation","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-30 15:57:27","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 30th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-15 01:07:54","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10926-026-10389-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-026-10389-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8301634","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8301634","identity":"rs-8301634","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}