ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2023
Developing A Conceptual Framework for Early Intervention Vocational Rehabilitation for People Following Spinal Cord Injury.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Works (or Doesn't) in Return to Work after Physical Injury? A Qualitative Study on the Perspectives of Trauma Patients and Health Care Professionals on Barriers and Facilitators in Return to Work.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Adaptive occupational alignment: a processual model of workforce reintegration after spinal cord injury.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Effective and Efficient Rehabilitation. What Works Best for Persons With SCI During (Sub)Acute Phase of Rehabilitation?Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
- Early Opportunities to Explore Occupational Identity Change: Qualitative Study of Return-To-Work Experiences After Stroke.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly intervention vocational rehabilitation (EIVR) can improve return to work (RTW) outcomes for people with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, mechanisms explaining how and why EIVR works are not well understood. This study aims to develop a conceptual framework describing key mechanisms of EIVR intervention effect following SCI.
methodsWe synthesised data from a realist literature review with data from interviews of people with SCI (n = 30), a survey of people with SCI who had received EIVR (n = 37), a focus group of EIVR providers and a focus group of community vocational providers. We first synthesised the literature review and interviews to develop an initial programme theory describing the contexts in which mechanisms are activated to produce EIVR outcomes. Then we used data from the survey and focus groups to further refine the EIVR programme theory. Finally, a conceptual framework was developed to support knowledge dissemination.
resultsBy ensuring consistent messaging across the multi-disciplinary team, EIVR programmes establish and maintain hope that work is possible following injury. Conversations about work allow individuals to determine the priority of work following injury. These conversations can also improve self-efficacy by providing individualized support to envisage pathways toward RTW goals and maintain worker identity. The synthesised study findings highlight the contexts and resources required to trigger activation of these mechanisms.
conclusionsEIVR key mechanisms of effect are not specific to SCI as a health condition, therefore enabling this framework to be applied to other populations who face similar impairments and return to work barriers.
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.