ArticlePloS one2025
Vocational rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis in the national health service of the United Kingdom: A realist evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement in Clinical Trials: A Multi-Perspective Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the ROWTATE Programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Vocational rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic scoping review of international evidence.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence about how vocational rehabilitation (VR) for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) can be delivered through the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and how it works.
aimTo understand the mechanisms and context for implementing a VR intervention for people with MS in the NHS and develop an explanatory programme theory.
methodsA realist evaluation, including a review of evidence followed by semi-structured interviews. A realist review about VR for people with MS in the NHS was conducted on six electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and EMBASE) with secondary purposive searches. Included studies were assessed for relevance and rigour. Semi-structured interviews with people with MS, employers, and healthcare professionals, were conducted remotely. Data were extracted, analysed, and synthesised to refine the programme theory and produce a logic model.
resultsData from 13 studies, and 19 interviews (10 people with MS, five employers, and four healthcare professionals) contributed to producing the programme theory. The resulting programme theory explains the implementation of VR in the NHS for MS populations, uncovering the complex interplay between the healthcare and employment sectors to influence health and employment outcomes. VR programmes that offer timely support, tailored to the needs of the person with MS, and that support and empower the employee beyond the healthcare context are most likely associated with improved employment outcomes, for example, job retention.
conclusionEmbedding VR support within the NHS requires substantial cultural and organisational change (e.g., increased staff numbers, training, and awareness about the benefits of work). This study emphasises the need to routinely identify people with MS at risk of job loss and follow a collaborative approach to address employment issues. This realist evaluation provides insight on how to improve the quality of care available to people with MS.
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.