Prioritizing risk factors and identifying target areas to address with interventions to improve sustainable employment of persons with a brain injury or a spinal cord injury - A multi-stakeholder consensus process.
Monika E Finger, Katarzyna Karcz, Barbara Schiffmann and 2 others
PMID 36873815WHAT IT FOUND
Stakeholders prioritized a lifelong contact person for work issues as the top intervention for brain and spinal cord injuries, with 73% agreement.
However, they rated the feasibility of implementing this and other proposed changes very low.
Key findings
01A lifelong contact person for work-related problems was identified as the most important intervention, with 73% of conference participants agreeing it should be ensured if needed.
02Seven of the nine prioritized risk factors were common to both brain injury and spinal cord injury groups, indicating more shared barriers than condition-specific ones.
03Feasibility ratings for all proposed interventions fell dramatically, with the highest-rated intervention (neurological assessment) receiving only 14% agreement on feasibility among conference participants.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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
Employers were underrepresented at the conference due to last-minute cancellations, which may have skewed the initial discussion. The study was conducted in Switzerland, where specific healthcare and insurance structures exist, so findings may not directly apply to other countries. Feasibility ratings were very low, suggesting that while stakeholders agree on the problems, they see few practical ways to fix them within the current system. The survey response rate was 22 of 29 conference participants, meaning some views were not captured in the final evaluation.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared by the authors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that high agreement on the need for an intervention means it is practical or available. For example, 91% of conference participants agreed that neurological assessment for brain injury is critical, but only 14% thought it was feasible to implement. The study identifies what stakeholders want, not what they can currently get.