Including significant others in vocational rehabilitation: a scoping review.

Only eight studies were included, and they differed so much in population, design and approach that the authors could not compare them. The review did not assess the quality of the included studies, so it cannot say how trustworthy any individual finding is. Terms for significant others are used inconsistently in the literature, so relevant studies may have been missed; the search covered only English and German and excluded grey literature. Many included studies did not describe how significant others were selected or what they were asked to do, so the reviewers had to interpret missing information. Because only published research was reviewed, approaches used in everyday practice may be missing entirely. One of the eight articles was a study protocol whose results were not yet available, so it contributes no findings.

The authors declared that financial support was received for this work or its publication. Five of the authors (FW, LF, EW, LK and K-EC) received general funding from the German Pension Insurance Berlin-Brandenburg, a public pension insurer rather than a company selling any treatment.

Do not read this as evidence that involving a partner or relative in vocational rehabilitation works. The review found only eight studies, did not check their quality, and combined no outcomes at all. One of the two randomised trials was still only a protocol, and the authors themselves describe the published research base as scarce.