ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2026
Utilizing nominal group technique to achieve consensus on a clinical decision-making tool for vocational rehabilitation at a grassroots level in South Africa.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2026. 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.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundBarriers to the delivery of vocational rehabilitation have been reported as a lack of knowledge, skills and confidence in occupational therapists who deliver these services. A program aimed at overcoming these barriers was developed to provide training in the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services. The program includes three decision-making tools to facilitate not only knowledge translation but also practice changes. The tools are (1) Return-to-Work Decision Tree, (2) Performance-based Assessment Tool, (3) Job Match Tool.ObjectiveThe objective of the research was to obtain consensus on the acceptability and utility of the developed tools to facilitate clinical reasoning in the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services.MethodsA nominal group technique was used to obtain consensus on the developed tools. During a second phase, participants were sent revised versions of the tools and asked to comment on the tools' clinical utility using a four-point Likert scale.ResultsThe Return-to-Work Decision Tree and the Performance-based Assessment Tool received a 100% agreement in terms of clinical utility with the Job Match Tool receiving a 90% agreement for clinical utility. Participants made valuable recommendations such as adding a user manual and a training workshop to facilitate implementation of the tools.ConclusionThe three tools developed to support clinical reasoning and decision making during the vocational rehabilitation process were reported to be acceptable by the expert participants. Further development of the Job Match Tool is recommended.
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.