These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [A meta-analysis of the impact of sample, kind of outcome measurement and time of follow up on occupational re-integration after vocational retraining].
    Author: Streibelt M, Egner U.
    Journal: Rehabilitation (Stuttg); 2012 Dec; 51(6):398-404. PubMed ID: 22673866.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) is an essential element of intervention to rehabilitate people with work disability due to chronic diseases. The activities are heterogeneous; of particular importance in the rehabilitation process is vocational retraining. These interventions are cost-intensive, take very long and have a decisive impact on the main goal, the return to work (RTW). However, vocational retraining is conducted under different settings: The question is to what extent this leads to specific methodical implications of RTW measurement that have an impact on the level of RTW. METHODS: The analysis was concentrated on the main outcome RTW after vocational retraining. A structured review was conducted of all German-language publications from 2005 to 2010 which report an RTW quota after vocational retraining. The main methodical conditions were: kind of RTW measurement (point in time rate vs. cumulative course rate), time of follow-up in years, and sample definition (all participants vs. participants with regular completion of retraining, RC). The impact of these conditions on the level of RTW was predicted by using a meta-regression model. The time of follow-up was standardized on the mean (1 year). RESULTS: 20 publications from 10 studies were included in the analysis. In all, 23 RTW quota were observed, from which 22 were included in the regression model. A positive impact on the level of RTW was identified for reduction of the sample to participants with RC (b=10.04; p=0.001), the time of follow-up (b=5.47; p=0.052) and, by trend, the interaction of the kind of RTW measurement and time of follow-up (b=6.32; p=0.090). There was no significance given for the main effect of kind of RTW measurement (p=0.787). The model fit was calculated with an adjusted R2=75.17%. CONCLUSIONS: The level of RTW given in the publications is very heterogeneous, but a major part of the variance was explained by the 3 methodical conditions we examined. Based on this, a classification system for RTW measurement after VR is presented, which could be a model for designing future studies as well as inter-actor communication of success after VR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]