4.4 Article

Evaluation of the implementation of the protocol of an early vocational rehabilitation intervention for people with acquired brain injury

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 62-70

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1017057

Keywords

Acquired brain injury; intervention; stroke; traumatic brain injury; vocational

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate (1) the feasibility of an early vocational rehabilitation (EVR) protocol in the standard rehabilitation process, (2) promoting factors and barriers encountered with the EVR protocol, and (3) perceived effectiveness of the protocol in facilitating return to work (RTW) following acquired brain injury (ABI). Method: A pre- and post-process evaluation was performed in a Dutch rehabilitation center. Dependent variables were feasibility (defined by the usability on process level and fulfillment of usability expectations), promoting factors and barriers, and perceived effectiveness of the protocol. Usability (defined by 13 performance and timing goals) was evaluated with existing forms and registrations. Fulfillment of usability expectations, perceived promoting factors and barriers, and perceived effectiveness were investigated with questionnaires. Data of 23 patients were available for process evaluation. Nine rehabilitation professionals, 10 patients with ABI, nine employers, and six occupational physicians completed the questionnaires. Results: Two-thirds of the performance goals and one-fourth of the timing goals were reached. All respondents cited the structured protocol as a promoting factor. Thirty-two of the thirty-four participants perceived the protocol as being suitable facilitating RTW after ABI. Conclusions: The EVR protocol provides a structured strategy to focus on RTW during standard rehabilitation. It is now possible to implement and test the protocol in other rehabilitation settings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available