ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2014
Injured workers' assessment of vocational rehabilitation services before and after retraining.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using the Functional Comorbidity Index with administrative workers' compensation data: Utility, validity, and caveats.American journal of industrial medicine · 2024Article
- Appraisal of Washington State workers' compensation-based return-to-work programs and suggested system improvements: A survey of workers with permanent impairments.American journal of industrial medicine · 2021Article
- Vocational rehabilitation program evaluation: comparison group challenges and the role of unmeasured return-to-work expectations.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2014Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWorkers' compensation-based vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs are costly and challenging to operate effectively. This study aimed to: (1) describe injured workers' assessment of Washington State's VR system before and after vocational retraining, (2) describe the factors affecting injured worker satisfaction with VR services, and (3) gather suggestions for program improvement from injured workers.
methodsTelephone surveys were conducted in two distinct samples: (1) 361 workers were interviewed after determination of retraining eligibility but before retraining plan development, and (2) 360 workers were interviewed after cessation of vocational services and claim closure.
resultsInjured workers interviewed before retraining were more often satisfied with the VR system (69 %) than were those interviewed after VR services ended (46 %). Although 55 % were initially somewhat/very certain they would return to work (RTW) after retraining, only 21 % had RTW 3-6 months after claim closure. Poor health, poor functional ability, and multiple retraining attempts were significantly associated with dissatisfaction. Suggestions for program improvement fell most frequently into the following areas: (1) more training choices, more worker input into the retraining goal, and/or a better fit of the retraining goal with the workers' experience and abilities (25 %); (2) listen to, respect, and/or understand the worker with regard to their interests, goals, and limitations (17 %); and (3) more support with job placement, work re-entry skills, and RTW in general (9 %).
conclusionsThere is substantial room for improvement in worker satisfaction with VR. Injured workers' feedback may facilitate identification of opportunities to improve the VR process and RTW outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24065344What 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.