Patients views on which return-to-work outcomes should be prioritised: A nominal group technique focus group.
Kay Bridger, Blerina Kellezi, Denise Kendrick and 6 others
PMID 40336650WHAT IT FOUND
Six trauma patients prioritised 'sense of purpose' and 'understanding the impact of injury' above simple return-to-work status.
They valued process outcomes like assessing readiness and educating employers, suggesting vocational rehabilitation should measure these alongside traditional employment metrics.
Key findings
01Participants ranked 'sense of purpose' (including work-life balance and satisfaction) as the single most important outcome, followed by 'understanding the impact of injury'.
02Six of the eight most important outcomes related to the vocational rehabilitation process itself (e.g. assessing readiness, goal setting) rather than just the final employment status.
03Participants did not prioritise financial stability or productivity loss as key outcomes, unlike some previous research.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only six participants were involved, and they were recruited from a single patient involvement group. The sample lacked diversity in injury types; spinal cord injury and amputation were not represented. All participants had already returned to work, which may bias priorities towards successful outcomes. Participants were several years post-injury, so recall of early recovery priorities may be affected.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and approved by an NHS Ethics Committee. Patient and public involvement members were involved in the study design, data analysis, and write-up.
The easy way to misread this
Do not generalise these priorities to all trauma patients. The group consisted of only six people, all of whom had successfully returned to work, and lacked representation from those with spinal cord injuries or amputations. These findings reflect the views of a small, specific subset of patients.