The British journal of occupational therapy · 2022
Patients views on which return-to-work outcomes should be prioritised: A nominal group technique focus group.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bridger Kay, Kellezi Blerina, Kendrick Denise, Kettlewell Jade, Holmes Jain, Timmons Stephen, Andrews Isabel, Fallon Stephen, Radford Kate
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Injuries can have a long-lasting effect on ability to return to work, but there is little research on which outcomes are most important to patients. This study aims to identify and prioritise return-to-work outcomes important to patients for evaluating vocational rehabilitation interventions.
METHODS: Nominal group technique focus group with trauma patients.
RESULTS: Focus group participants (n = 6) included mostly traumatic brain injuries, a range of occupation types, ages and both genders. Participants identified and prioritised their eight most important outcomes which were: sense of purpose and life satisfaction, understanding the impact of injury, assessment of readiness to return to work, using SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) goals, facilitated reintegration to work, assessing capacity to return to work, collaboration between key stakeholders and improved employer and employee knowledge. Many of these were measures of the process of, rather than change outcomes of vocational rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: The range of outcomes identified by trauma patients highlights the complex process of return to work and the need for vocational rehabilitation evaluations to incorporate a broader range of outcomes. Measures of the process of vocational rehabilitation are also important to trauma patients and should be included in such evaluations.
METHODS: Nominal group technique focus group with trauma patients.
RESULTS: Focus group participants (n = 6) included mostly traumatic brain injuries, a range of occupation types, ages and both genders. Participants identified and prioritised their eight most important outcomes which were: sense of purpose and life satisfaction, understanding the impact of injury, assessment of readiness to return to work, using SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) goals, facilitated reintegration to work, assessing capacity to return to work, collaboration between key stakeholders and improved employer and employee knowledge. Many of these were measures of the process of, rather than change outcomes of vocational rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: The range of outcomes identified by trauma patients highlights the complex process of return to work and the need for vocational rehabilitation evaluations to incorporate a broader range of outcomes. Measures of the process of vocational rehabilitation are also important to trauma patients and should be included in such evaluations.