ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2022
Usability of self-reported assessment of work functioning in municipal occupational rehabilitation teams: A qualitative study.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to explore (1) whether self-reported assessment on work-related functioning, workability, return-to-work (RTW) self-efficacy, and expectation was useful in the professionals' assessment of sick-listed workers and could guide referral to interventions and (2) whether self-reporting in addition to "usual practice" could improve the RTW dialog and involvement in case management. Methods: The qualitative study took place in two municipal job centers in 2021. The assessment was based on the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire, RTW-Self-efficacy Scale-19, and single items of self-rated health, workability, and RTW expectations. Sick-listed workers ( Results: Three themes with seven subthemes emerged: (1) accessibility; (2) one tool in the RTW toolbox (subthemes: a supplementary tool, a tool for reflection, facilitating interdisciplinary communication, and enhancing active participation); and (3) the value of "ticking boxes" (subthemes: good days, bad days, the issue of power, and the cultural meaning of words). Conclusion: The professionals would not recommend the present questionnaire for use during their rehabilitation team meeting for assessment, interdisciplinary communication, or choice of interventions. However, using the parts assessing RTW self-efficacy and expectation combined with a dialog may be of value early in the RTW process. The self-reporting assessment tool was perceived to be meaningful to some sick-listed workers, as it provided reflections on important aspects of the RTW process. Some workers believed that it might contribute to the rehabilitation team, and thus, it could improve their involvement.
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.