Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27796914›Full record

ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2016

Implementation Science and Employer Disability Practices: Embedding Implementation Factors in Research Designs.

Chris J Main, Michael K Nicholas, William S Shaw, Lois E Tetrick, Mark G Ehrhart, Glenn Pransky, Hopkinton Conference Working Group on Workplace Disability Prevention

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Chris J MainArthritis Care UK Primary Care Center, Keele University, North Staffordshire, UK.
Michael K NicholasPain Management Research Institute, Sydney Medical School - Northern, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia. michael.nicholas@sydney.edu.au.
William S ShawLiberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, USA.
Lois E TetrickGeorge Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Mark G EhrhartSan Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Glenn PranskyLiberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, USA.
Hopkinton Conference Working Group on Workplace Disability Prevention
George Mason University · USRoyal North Shore Hospital · AUUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USKeele University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose For work disability research to have an impact on employer policies and practices it is important for such research to acknowledge and incorporate relevant aspects of the workplace. The goal of this article is to summarize recent theoretical and methodological advances in the field of Implementation Science, relate these to research of employer disability management practices, and recommend future research priorities. Methods The authors participated in a year-long collaboration culminating in an invited 3-day conference, "Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability", held October 14-16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience. Results A 4-phase implementation model including both outer and inner contexts was adopted as the most appropriate conceptual framework, and aligned well with the set of process evaluation factors described in both the work disability prevention literature and the grey literature. Innovative interventions involving disability risk screening and psychologically-based interventions have been slow to gain traction among employers and insurers. Research recommendations to address this are : (1) to assess organizational culture and readiness for change in addition to individual factors; (2) to conduct process evaluations alongside controlled trials; (3) to analyze decision-making factors among stakeholders; and (4 ) to solicit input from employers and insurers during early phases of study design. Conclusions Future research interventions involving workplace support and involvement to prevent disability may be more feasible for implementation if organizational decision-making factors are imbedded in research designs and interventions are developed to take account of these influences.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansOccupational InjuriesPersons with DisabilitiesProgram DevelopmentWorkplaceDisability preventionImplementation factorsResearch prioritiesWorkplace interventions

Identifiers

PMID27796914
PMCPMC5104783
OpenAlexW2539493136

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.