ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Mapping Vocational Rehabilitation Interventions for People with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. 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.
- Experiences of Rehabilitation Professionals in Guiding Rehabilitation for People with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Qualitative Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLow back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Clinical guidelines recommend multidisciplinary rehabilitation for managing chronic LBP. This scoping review maps vocational rehabilitation (VR) interventions delivered within the healthcare sector for individuals with chronic LBP. It explores (1) which professional groups are involved and how they collaborate, (2) the setting, (3) the duration, intensity, and components of interventions, and (4) how work status is assessed.
methodsA systematic search across six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, OT Seeker, and Scopus) was conducted in September 2023 and updated in October 2024, following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies were included if they involved working age individuals with chronic LBP receiving VR initiated within the healthcare sector. Articles published before 2013, from outside Europe, or with > 50% of participants on sick leave > 12 months were excluded.
resultsOf 7032 records, 26 articles representing 21 studies from seven European countries were included. Interventions varied in duration (1-12 weeks or until return-to-work (RTW) or a new plan was established), intensity (a few hours to 30 h/week), complexity, and follow-up periods (5 weeks to 5 years). Interdisciplinary collaboration was most common (six studies), although descriptions were limited. Interventions ranged from simple to complex, with up to seven components. Nineteen different methods were used to assess work status.
conclusionSubstantial heterogeneity in intervention design and RTW outcome measures limits comparability and evidence synthesis. Clearer definitions of collaboration and standardized RTW reporting are needed to inform future development of VR in healthcare contexts.
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.