Patient perspectives on key outcomes for vocational rehabilitation interventions following traumatic injury

Returning to work after traumatic injury can have a range of benefits, but there is currently little research that incorporates patient perspectives to identify outcomes of vocational rehabilitation interventions that are important to survivors. Trauma survivors (n = 17) participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews or focus groups exploring outcomes that were important to them for recovery and return to work. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants identified a range of outcomes that they considered important and necessary to facilitate a successful and sustainable return to work: physical and psychological recovery, purposeful life engagement, managing expectations of recovery, managing expectations about return to work, and employers’ expectations. Our participants advocated for a multifaceted and biopsychosocial understanding of recovery and outcomes that need to be captured for vocational rehabilitation interventions. Implications for practice and research are discussed, and recommendations are given based on the findings

Factors affecting the delivery and acceptability of the ROWTATE telehealth vocational rehabilitation intervention for traumatic injury survivors: a mixed-methods study

Background: Returning to work after traumatic injury can be problematic. We developed a vocational telerehabilitation (VR) intervention for trauma survivors, delivered by trained occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs), and explored factors affecting delivery and acceptability in a feasibility study. Methods: Surveys pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-training (3 OTs, 1 CP); interviews pre- (5 OTs, 2 CPs) and post-intervention (4 trauma survivors, 4 OTs, 2 CPs). Mean survey scores for 14 theoretical domains identified telerehabilitation barriers (score ≤ 3.5) and facilitators (score ≥ 5). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Surveys: pre-training, the only barrier was therapists’ intentions to use telerehabilitation (mean = 3.40 ± 0.23), post-training, 13/14 domains were facilitators. Interviews: barriers/facilitators included environmental context/resources (e.g., technology, patient engagement, privacy/disruptions, travel and access); beliefs about capabilities (e.g., building rapport, complex assessments, knowledge/confidence, third-party feedback and communication style); optimism (e.g., impossible assessments, novel working methods, perceived importance and patient/therapist reluctance) and social/professional role/identity (e.g., therapeutic methods). Training and experience of intervention delivery addressed some barriers and increased facilitators. The intervention was acceptable to trauma survivors and therapists. Conclusion: Despite training and experience in intervention delivery, some barriers remained. Providing some face-to-face delivery where necessary may address certain barriers, but strategies are required to address other barriers