ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2021
Usability and consistency in findings of the work support needs assessment tool.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Decision Aid to Support Vocational Rehabilitation Professionals Offering Tailored Care to Benefit Recipients with a Long-Term Work Disability: A Feasibility Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructured work support needs assessment could facilitate professionals and increase assessment consistency.
objectivesEvaluating usability of the Work Support Needs Assessment Tool and test if professionals' (labour experts, coaches) findings become more consistent after a tool training. The tool includes a 21 item checklist for assessing work support needs of people with disabilities.
methodsUsability was explored through 28 interviews with professionals. Consistency was evaluated in an experimental pre-post study design, in which thirty-nine other professionals assessed work support needs of standardized clients before and after a protocolized training. Quantitative content analysis was conducted. Consistency of findings between professionals covered three categories: type (client-focused coaching), focus (topics to be addressed) and duration of support. An increase in consistency was defined as a decrease in the total number of different sub-categories of findings in each category.
resultsNineteen professionals indicated that the tool was useful, as they gained relevant information and insights. Regarding consistency, the number of findings differed pre- and post-training for type of support (8 vs 9) and focus of support (18 vs 15 and 18 vs 17).
conclusionsParticipants had positive experiences with the tool. Increased consistency in findings of professionals after the training was not demonstrated with the current study design.
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.