ArticleBMC health services research2024
Optimizing the Maastricht Work-Related Support intervention in clinical patient care: the value of integrating action research into intervention mapping.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation of the Maastricht Work-Related Support Intervention for Healthcare Professionals in Clinical Care.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare professionals (HCPs) are increasingly recommended to play an important role in supporting people with chronic disease in work participation. An intervention for HCPs to provide work-related support to their patients in clinical care was developed with intervention mapping (Maastricht Work-Related Support; Maastricht WRS). Action research proposes 'combining research and practice', which allows us to incorporate experiences of HCPs while implementing and to realize intervention's full potential. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore, by integrating action research into an intervention mapping approach, how experiences of HCPs with early implementation can be used to optimize the Maastricht WRS in clinical care.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were held with nine HCPs (response rate 82%), involved in care for people with inflammatory arthritis, knee problems or inflammatory bowel disease. Some of them were not yet trained in the Maastricht WRS while others had received the training and were providing the Maastricht WRS.
resultsAll participants regarded WRS an important part of clinical care. Untrained HCPs indicated a lack of knowledge and skills in providing the Maastricht WRS, and a need for tools. Trained HCPs were satisfied with the training and tools, but stressed that practical limitations hindered providing the Maastricht WRS. Action research showed that the intervention meets the needs of HCPs, but need some optimizations: (1) organizing 'intervision' for HCPs, (2) inform and activate patients to discuss work with their HCP, (3) update initial tools and (4) including patients' work status in the electronic patient system.
conclusionsAction research integrated into intervention mapping proved to improve the Maastricht WRS intervention. By involving HCPs, the intervention could be optimized to provide to support people with chronic diseases in clinical care in healthy and sustainable work participation.
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.