ArticleBMJ open2025
Mixed-methods non-randomised single-arm feasibility study assessing delivery of a remote vocational rehabilitation intervention for patients with serious injury: the ROWTATE 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 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of delivering a vocational rehabilitation intervention (Return to Work After Trauma-ROWTATE), remotely to individuals recovering from traumatic injuries. The primary objectives were to assess therapists' training and competence, adapt the intervention and training for remote delivery and assess the feasibility and fidelity of remote delivery to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial.
designA mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating (1) telerehabilitation qualitative literature review, (2) qualitative interviews preintervention and postintervention with therapists and patients, (3) a team objective structured clinical examination to assess competency, (4) usefulness of training, attitudes towards (15-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale) and confidence in (4-item Evidence Based Practice Confidence Scale) evidence-based practice, intervention delivery confidence (8-bespoke questions) and intervention behaviour determinants (51-items Theoretical Domains Framework) and (5) single-arm intervention delivery feasibility study.
settingThe study was conducted in two UK Major Trauma Centres. The intervention and training were adapted for remote delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
participantsTherapists: Seven occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs) were trained, and six participated in competency assessment. Seven OTs and CPs participated in preintervention interviews and surveys; six completed post-intervention interviews and four completed post-training surveys. PATIENTS: 10 patients were enrolled in the single-arm feasibility study and 4 of these participated in postintervention qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria included therapists involved in vocational rehabilitation delivery and patients admitted to major trauma centres. Exclusion criteria included participation in other vocational rehabilitation trials or those who had returned to work or education for at least 80% of preinjury hours.
interventionThe ROWTATE vocational rehabilitation intervention was delivered remotely by trained OTs and CPs. Training included competency assessments, mentoring and adaptation for telerehabilitation. The intervention was delivered over multiple sessions, with content tailored to individual patient needs.
resultsTherapists found the training useful, reported positive attitudes (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale mean=2.9 (SD 0.9)) and high levels of confidence in delivering evidence-based practice (range 75%-100%) and the ROWTATE intervention (range 80%-100%). Intervention barriers identified pretraining became facilitators post-training. Half the therapists needed additional support post-training through mentoring or additional training. The intervention and training were successfully adapted for remote delivery. High levels of fidelity (intervention components delivered: OTs=84.5%, CPs=92.9%) and session attendance rates were found (median: OT=97%, CP=100%). Virtually all sessions were delivered remotely (OT=98%, CP=100%). The intervention was acceptable to patients and therapists; both considered face-to-face delivery where necessary was important.
conclusionsThe ROWTATE intervention was delivered remotely with high fidelity and attendance and was acceptable to patients and therapists. Definitive trial key changes include modifying therapist training, competency assessment, face-to-face intervention delivery where necessary and addressing lower fidelity intervention components. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN74668529.
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.