Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26811171›Full record

Trial reportJournal of occupational rehabilitation2016

Process Evaluation of a Workplace Integrated Care Intervention for Workers with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

M van Vilsteren, C R L Boot, A E Voskuyl, R Steenbeek, D van Schaardenburg, J R Anema

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Collaboration between occupational health services and other health care: a scoping review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M van VilsterenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Room BS7-C573, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C R L BootDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Room BS7-C573, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. crl.boot@vumc.nl.
A E VoskuylDepartment of Rheumatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R SteenbeekBody@Work, Research Center on Physical Activity, Work, and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D van SchaardenburgJan van Breemen Research Institute|Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J R AnemaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Room BS7-C573, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLReade · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To perform a process evaluation of the implementation of a workplace integrated care intervention for workers with rheumatoid arthritis to maintain and improve work productivity. The intervention consisted of integrated care and a participatory workplace intervention with the aim to make adaptations at the workplace. Methods The implementation of the workplace integrated care intervention was evaluated with the framework of Linnan and Steckler. We used the concepts recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and satisfaction with the intervention. Data collection occurred through patient questionnaires and medical records. Results Participants were recruited by sending a letter including a reply card from their own rheumatologist. In total, we invited 1973 patients to participate. We received 1184 reply cards, and of these, 150 patients eventually participated in the study. Integrated care was delivered according to protocol for 46.7 %, while the participatory workplace intervention was delivered for 80.6 %. Dose received was nearly 70 %, which means that participants implemented 70 % of the workplace adaptations proposed during the participatory workplace intervention. The fidelity score for both integrated care and the participatory workplace intervention was sufficient, although communication between members of the multidisciplinary team was limited. Participants were generally satisfied with the intervention. Conclusions This process evaluation shows that our intervention was not entirely implemented as intended. The integrated care was not delivered to enough participants, but for the intervention components that were delivered, the fidelity was good. Communication between members of the multidisciplinary team was limited. However, the participatory workplace intervention was implemented successfully, and participants indicated that they were satisfied with the intervention.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational Health ServicesPatient SatisfactionProgram EvaluationWorkplaceIntervention studiesRheumatoid arthritisWork

Identifiers

PMID26811171
PMCPMC4967423
OpenAlexW2264024327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.