ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2025
A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation of the Maastricht Work-Related Support Intervention for Healthcare Professionals in Clinical Care.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform the process evaluation of an intervention that aims to facilitate clinical healthcare professionals (HCP) to provide Maastricht Work-Related Support (WRS) to working patients with a chronic disease.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was applied to address reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM framework) as well as context of the Maastricht WRS intervention. Qualitative data included interviews with HCPs (N = 10), patients at two time points (N = 10 and N = 9), and field notes. Quantitative data included screening logbooks of HCPs, patient screening forms, and a questionnaire for patients. Content analysis or computation of frequencies was applied where applicable.
resultsTwenty-eight HCPs participated in the intervention (reach). They had a low attitude toward providing Maastricht WRS themselves (adoption). During clinical consultations, they addressed work for 770 of 1,624 (47%) persons of working age. Only 57% (437/770) had paid work, of which 10% (44/437) acknowledged a current need for support. Discussing work during clinical consultations by HCPs was hindered by other medical priorities and patients not disclosing problems (implementation). Over time, Maastricht WRS was less consistently provided (maintenance). Patients reported a positive impact of the intervention, such as fitness for work (efficacy). Context (e.g., lack of urgency, priority, time, and management support) played a pivotal role in the implementation.
conclusionThis evaluation showed that HCPs had a positive attitude toward WRS in general, but their attitude toward provide Maastricht WRS themselves in daily clinical care was low. Recommendations include improving HCPs' attitude, addressing WRS as a key policy point, and facilitating time.
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.