ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Vocational rehabilitation and return to work after spinal cord injury: a scoping review of policies in the U.S. and Canada.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
Purpose: Spinal cord injury (SCI) significantly impacts quality of life and economic independence, yet employment rates remain disproportionately low, suggesting a divergence between the legislative intent of inclusion and the clinical goal of functioning. The alignment of social policy with rehabilitation practice is essential. This study conducted a comparative scoping review of federal policies and policy-driven vocational rehabilitation (VR) strategies in the U.S. and Canada to map the evidence landscape and identify critical gaps in cross-national research. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines and the Arksey and O'Malley framework were used. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, and Google Scholar, using COVIDENCE for the final review. Guided by the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework, we included English-language studies and materials that addressed federal-level policies in Canada and the U.S. related to the employment of persons with SCI. Results: Overall, 10 studies were analyzed. The literature predominantly focused on the U.S., particularly within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and state VR systems. A recurring barrier identified across both nations was the "benefits trap," where social protection policies create financial disincentives that affect return-to-work (RTW). On the other hand, integrated interventions such as Individual Placement and Support (IPS) and federally mandated resource allocation (e.g., for assistive technology) demonstrated superior outcomes compared to traditional models. Conclusions: Current policy frameworks, while effective at protecting against discrimination, are often insufficient to overcome structural and financial disincentives to employment. To truly reconcile the goals of rehabilitation and inclusion, future efforts must address policy-driven barriers and prioritize funding for integrated, hospital-based vocational services that translate legal rights into employment outcomes for individuals with SCI.
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.