ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Experiences of Rehabilitation Professionals in Guiding Rehabilitation for People with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePeople with chronic low back pain, or more specifically, Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2, experience decreased functionality and quality of life, resulting in a heavy personal and societal burden worldwide. Increasing the capacity of a person to participate in meaningful activities, including return to work, has gained substantial attention, but results remain suboptimal. Gaining more insight into stakeholder experiences is crucial to enhance outcomes. This study aims to investigate the lived experiences of rehabilitation professionals in guiding rehabilitation for people with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome type 2 in a research context.
methodsAn interpretative hermeneutic-phenomenological study was conducted to generate an interpretative understanding of rehabilitation professionals' lived experience in delivering an intervention within a structured research context. Data were collected during semi-structured interviews with 10 rehabilitation professionals. Data analysis followed an interpretative hermeneutic process.
resultsThe following experiences were identified: (1) a structured balance between capacity and demand; (2) leaving the current pain-oriented approach; (3) a catalyst for work-oriented reasoning beyond workability; (4) the emerging need for building towards interdisciplinarity; and (5) multiple layers of personalisation.
conclusionPersonalisation is most effective when embedded within a multimodal rehabilitation framework that addresses the physical, psychological, occupational, and contextual domains of functioning. However, it remains a concept that is hard to grasp. Workability-focused protocols may function not only as treatment frameworks but also as catalysts for broader return-to-work reasoning. Although multidisciplinarity is a solid structure, interdisciplinarity is preferred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42706474What 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.