ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2011
Empowering employees with chronic diseases: process evaluation of an intervention aimed at job retention.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Therapeutic Work as a Facilitator for Return to Paid Work in Cancer Survivors.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2017Article
- Future challenges for occupational health services can be prevented by proactive collaboration with the companies using the services: a participatory and reflection project.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2017Article
- Implementing a self-management intervention for people with a chronic compensable musculoskeletal injury in a workers compensation context: a process evaluation.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2015Article
- Tension at the borders: perceptions of role overload, conflict, strain and facilitation in work, family and health roles among employed individuals with arthritis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEmployees with a chronic disease may experience work-related problems that contribute to the risk of job loss. We developed a group-based intervention programme aimed at clarifying problems, making these a subject of discussion at work, and realizing solutions. This process evaluation investigates the intervention's feasibility and the satisfaction of 64 participants in eight groups.
methodsData were collected through process evaluation forms and self-report questionnaires.
resultsThe recruitment of participants was time-consuming. Highly educated women working in the service sector were overrepresented. The programme was administered as planned, although components were sometimes only discussed briefly, due to lack of time. Satisfaction with the overall programme among participants was high; it was perceived as effective and there were only three dropouts. In particular, the focus on feelings and thoughts about having a chronic disease was highly valued, as were the exchange of experiences and role-playing directed at more assertive communication.
conclusionsA vocational rehabilitation programme aimed at job retention is feasible and is perceived to be effective. Such a programme should address psychosocial aspects of working with a chronic disease beside practical problems. The recruitment of participants is time-consuming. Cooperation with outpatient clinics is necessary in order to reach all groups of employees with a chronic disease that might benefit from job retention programmes.
trial registrationISRCTN77240155.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.