4.0 Article

Clinical anamnestic characteristics in neurological work-related medical rehabilitation. Necessity for a qualitative identification of severe restrictions of work ability

Journal

NERVENARZT
Volume 89, Issue 2, Pages 169-177

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00115-017-0430-z

Keywords

Severe restrictions of work ability; Work-related medical rehabilitation; Neurological rehabilitation; Screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Severe restrictions of work ability (SRWA) as a condition for participation in neurological work-related medical rehabilitation (WMR) have not been adequately described up to now. Similarly, the applicability of the screening instrument SIMBO-C for evaluating SRWA in neurological rehabilitation has not yet been answered conclusively. Determination of clinical and anamnestic characteristics of neurological SRWA and assessment of the applicability of the screening instrument SIMBO-C in neurological WMR. For the identification of SRWA clinical and anamnestic characteristics of 344 rehabilitants were routinely collected. The clinically and anamnestically determined SRWA was described quantitatively and content-analytically and correlated with SIMBO-C. Of the rehabilitants 66% exhibited SRWA. Apart from the established characteristics of SRWA further person and disease-specific factors were found. The SIMBO-C score was significantly higher in the group with SRWA compared to the group without SRWA (45.6 +/- 18.9 vs. 31.5 +/- 12.5, p < 0.001); however, 31% of the group with SRWA and 50% of the group without SRWA demonstrated a SIMBO-C score <= 36 points and thereby a large overlap. The profile of the clinical and anamnestic characteristics in the group with SRWA was homogeneous, regardless of the SIMBO-C score. The characteristics of neurological SRWA are mainly qualitatively shaped and may only partly be identified by SIMBO-C. A combined quantitative and qualitative approach is necessary in neurological WMR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available