目標：每年約有五萬名勞工發生職業災害，研究發現職傷後有一定比例的勞工會發生精神疾病，進而影響其復工。目前台灣鮮少研究探討職業傷害勞工之復工需求。期望了解勞工發生職災到順利復工的協助需求，以提供相關單位作為擬訂職災勞工照護之參考。方法：本研究以2009年02月01日至08月31日因職業傷害住院超過3天以上的職業傷害勞工（N=4,403）為研究對象，於其職業傷害發生後12個月寄發問卷。本問卷是採自填式問卷，問卷內容包括基本資料、職業傷害處理狀況、身體受傷狀況、與復工情形。結果：共有1,233人回覆，回覆率為28.0%。受傷後一年已復工者969位（78.6%），未復工者264位（21.4%）。相較於已復工者，未復工者的平均年齡較高、教育程度較低、離開原公司的比例較高、對於公司提供職災協助的滿意程度較低、覺得職災補助取得不容易、自覺受傷程度較嚴重，且身體外觀有明顯缺陷。已復工者，僅18.1%（n=175）有接受復工評估，有接受復工評估者的休養週數比未進行復工評估者長（14.3±13.1 vs. 10.7±12.0），復工主要決定者多為雇主決定（n=109，62.3%），而接受復工評估者比沒有接受復工評估的人有較高的比例發生受傷部位復發的狀況為（39.4% vs. 31.2%，p=0.03）。結論：建議政府結合社區資源，建立常設之職災服務單一窗口，普及職災個案照護，並建議職業傷病勞工的復工評估與醫療應經由各地區之職業傷病防治中心或職業病專科醫師執行，以強化職業傷病防治中心與職業病專科醫師的角色並落實復工的功能。

Objectives: Fifty-seven thousand occupational injuries occur in Taiwan each year. Previous studies have found that a certain proportion of workers developed psychiatric symptoms after the injury and those symptoms were an important obstacle to their return to work. The aim of this study was to investigate workers' need to return to work 12 months after an occupational injury. Methods: The study population was composed of workers who were injured at work, hospitalized for 3 or more days, and later received Inpatient Hospitalization Benefits as part of Occupational Accident Medical Benefits from Labor Insurance between February 1 and August 31, 2009. The subjects were recruited consecutively 12 months after injury and assessed by a self-reported questionnaire which included demographic data, severity of injury, the process of workers compensation, and their return to work. Results: A total of 1,233 injured workers completed the self-reported questionnaire for a response rate of 28.0%. Among those who completed the questionnaire, 78.6% (n=969) returned to work while the other 21.4% (n=264) did not. Compared to subjects who returned to work, those who were unable to do so were older, received less education, had a higher proportion of leaving their original employer, had lower scores for the workers compensation process, and consider workers compensation approval difficult to obtain. Among injured workers, only 18.1% (n=175) had received an assessment for return to work. Compared to those who did not receive such an assessment, injured workers who did had longer sick leaves and returned to work later (14.3 ± 13.1 vs. 10.7 ± 12.0 weeks). In general, the assessment and decision to return to work were made mostly by employers (62.3%, n=109). Moreover, workers who received an assessment had a higher risk of relapse after returning to work compared to those who did not (39.4% vs. 31.2%, p=0.03). Conclusions: The integration and re-orientation of the existing resources for severely occupationally injured workers and strengthening single unit service for them are warranted if the government is to succeed in providing a reasonable health care system for these workers.