ArticleBMJ open2025
Stakeholder acceptability of the ROWTATE vocational rehabilitation intervention in England: an interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe ROWTATE intervention helps people experiencing trauma to return to work (RTW) through vocational rehabilitation (VR) support from occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs). This study aims to explore and understand the acceptability of VR after traumatic injury for patients, therapists and employers. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative interviews in eight major trauma regions, UK.
participantsInterviews were undertaken with a range of stakeholders-15 patients, 15 therapists and 6 employers. Data were analysed using the theoretical framework of acceptability.
resultsStakeholders understood the aim of the intervention was to support people to RTW and perceived it as effective in achieving this. Patients and therapists understood the benefits of working with a combination of occupational therapy and clinical psychology. The intervention fits with the values of patients wanting to recover, therapists wanting to offer support and line managers wanting to meet employer and employee needs.Patients reported they could not have achieved RTW without the intervention, and their therapist helped them feel less alone. Therapists felt that their work was rewarding, effective and had good outcomes. Patients perceived remote delivery as less burdensome than attending in person. Therapists felt they wasted time on non-patient activity, such as (re-)arranging appointments.Employers discussed the difficulty of balancing employer and employee needs and managing uncertainty. Some workplace policies lacked flexibility, and without the ROWTATE intervention, employers lacked confidence in supporting employees RTW.
conclusionsA VR intervention delivered remotely by OTs and CPs is acceptable to patients, therapists and employers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43115471.
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.