ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2022
Employment effects for people with disabilities after participation in vocational training programmes: A cohort analysis using propensity score matching.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2022. 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.
- Exploring factors shaping employment outcomes of people with disabilities through the PEOP model: a scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Review
- Promoting Job Quality and Career Advancement Among Persons with Disabilities During Critical Career Transitions: A Scoping Review of Published Evidence.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Active Labor Market Policy Reform: Employment Outcomes of Vocational Rehabilitation Services.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVocational rehabilitation (VR) aims to help people with disabilities to return to the labour market. Though, there is not much evidence on its effectiveness.
objectivesWe explore the effect of vocational training programmes in VR and the VR status itself on employment outcomes.
methodsUsing two samples from administrative data by the German Federal Employment Agency, we applied propensity score matching. We followed rehabilitants commencing VR in 2009/2010 (N = 7,905) for four years (comparison I) and general training participants with and without VR status completing training in 2012/2013 (N = 21,020) for one year (comparison II). For harmonisation purposes, we only considered individuals aged between 25 and 40 and excluded those in employment at the beginning of VR or training.
resultsConcerning the effect of training in VR (comparison I), we observe a lock-in effect during training (p < 0.001) due to an involvement in VR; after training, participants are more likely to obtain unsubsidised employment (0.05, p < 0.05) than non-participants, but there is no statistically significant income difference after four years. Regarding the effect of the VR status (comparison II), rehabilitants are more likely to take up (un-)subsidised employment (0.04, p < 0.01; 0.02, p < 0.001) after training, exhibit longer employment durations (19 days, p < 0.001) and achieve higher average incomes (2,414 euro/year, p < 0.001) compared to non-rehabilitants.
conclusionsTraining participation helps to improve employment participation of rehabilitants. However, a longer observation period is recommended. Furthermore, the VR status itself leads to more sustainable and better-paid employment. This is due to more comprehensive support and longer-term subsidised employment opportunities.
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.