Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29663111›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2019

Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives.

Marie-France Coutu, France Légaré, Marie-José Durand, Dawn Stacey, Marie-Elise Labrecque, Marc Corbière, Lesley Bainbridge

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05058547 (An Evidence-based Digital Support for One Year to Facilitate a Sustainable Return to Work for Persons With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Their Employers), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05058547 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

An Evidence-based Digital Support for One Year to Facilitate a Sustainable Return to Work for Persons With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Their Employers: Study Protocol for a Registry-based Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorLinkoeping UniversityRan2022 to 2024Enrolled360ConditionsChronic PainArmsSWEPPE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

7 authors.

Marie-France CoutuCAPRIT and School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada. marie-france.coutu@usherbrooke.ca.
France LégaréResearch Center of Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, St-François d'Assise Hospital, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Marie-José DurandCAPRIT and School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada.
Dawn StaceySchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Marie-Elise LabrecqueCAPRIT and School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada.
Marc CorbièreUniversité du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Lesley BainbridgeUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé 0000022065Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail 00-99-8320
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To establish the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a shared decision-making (SDM) model in work rehabilitation. Methods We used a sequential mixed-methods design with diverse stakeholder groups (representatives of private and public employers, insurers, and unions, as well as workers having participated in a work rehabilitation program). First, a survey using a self-administered questionnaire enabled stakeholders to rate their level of agreement with the model's acceptability and feasibility and propose modifications, if necessary. Second, eight focus groups representing key stakeholders (n = 34) and four one-on-one interviews with workers were conducted, based on the questionnaire results. For each stakeholder group, we computed the percentage of agreement with the model's acceptability and feasibility and performed thematic analyses of the transcripts. Results Less than 50% of each stakeholder group initially agreed with the overall acceptability and feasibility of the model. Stakeholders proposed 37 modifications to the objectives, 17 to the activities, and 39 to improve the model's feasibility. Based on in-depth analysis of the transcripts, indicators were added to one objective, an interview guide was added as proposed by insurers to ensure compliance of the SDM process with insurance contract requirements, and one objective was reformulated. Conclusion Despite initially low agreement with the model's acceptability on the survey, subsequent discussions led to three minor changes and contributed to the model's ultimate acceptability and feasibility. Later steps will involve assessing the extent of implementation of the model in real rehabilitation settings to see if other modifications are necessary before assessing its impact.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedStakeholder ParticipationAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational InjuriesQualitative ResearchReturn to WorkSurveys and QuestionnairesChronic painInjuriesPeople with disabilitiesRehabilitationShared decision makingWork

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.