4.6 Article

Replication of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Resource Facilitation to Improve Return to Work and School After Brain Injury

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 97, Issue 2, Pages 204-210

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.09.016

Keywords

Brain injuries; Employment; Rehabilitation

Funding

  1. Indiana Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Board [040100]
  2. Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the extent to which previous findings on the effectiveness of resource facilitation to impact return to work and school could be replicated. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient rehabilitation clinic. Participants: Outpatients with acquired brain injury (N=44). Intervention: Fifteen months of resource facilitation services. Main Outcome Measures: A revised version of the Vocational Independence Scale and the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-4 Participation Index. Results: Participants randomized to the resource facilitation group demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of rate and timing of return to productive community-based work relative to control participants. When examining only return to competitive work (and not return to school), 69% of the resource facilitation group was able to return compared with 50% of the control participants. Analyses of measures of participation in household and community activities revealed that both groups improved significantly over the 15-month study period, but no significant advantage for either group was demonstrated. Conclusions: This study replicates the positive impact of resource facilitation in improving productive community-based activity, including competitive employment and volunteering in the community. (C) 2016 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available