ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2026
Exploring the implementation of an ICF-based instrument and guideline for interprofessional collaboration in the return-to-work process.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundInterprofessional collaboration among occupational health professionals (OHPs) is essential for guiding sick-listed employees and facilitating return to work (RTW). However, the lack of a shared language among different OHPs can hinder effective collaboration. To address this, an instrument and multidisciplinary guideline based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) were developed.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of the ICF-based instrument and multidisciplinary guideline, as well as to explore OHPs' experiences to support implementation in daily practice.MethodsA triangulated mixed-methods design was used, combining OHPs assessing work capacity with the instrument in practice for sick-listed employees, followed by interviews, case reviews, and focus groups with both medical and non-medical OHPs. The Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Implementation (MIDI) guided data collection and analysis.ResultsOHPs experienced the ICF-based instrument as comprehensible, usable for providing sick leave guidance, and particularly valuable for enabling qualitative assessments of work capacity and RTW possibilities. The so-called d-codes included in the instrument, derived from the ICF-framework, facilitated communication between medical and non-medical professionals. OHPs also found the instrument supported shared decision-making by incorporating both employees' and employers' perspectives. Application was especially suited for complex cases of long-term sick leave.ConclusionsThis study highlights the potential of implementing the ICF-based instrument and multidisciplinary guideline in occupational health practice to improve interprofessional collaboration during sick leave and RTW. OHPs reported that the instrument supports capturing both the strengths and limitations of sick-listed employees, while also addressing workplace and personal factors.
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.