Patients views on which return-to-work outcomes should be prioritised: A nominal group technique focus group

Kay Bridger; Blerina Kellezi; Denise Kendrick; Jade Kettlewell; Jain Holmes; Stephen Timmons; Isabel Andrews; Stephen Fallon; Kate Radford

doi:10.1177/03080226211072766

Patients views on which return-to-work outcomes should be prioritised: A nominal group technique focus group

Br J Occup Ther. 2022 Sep;85(9):704-711. doi: 10.1177/03080226211072766. Epub 2022 Mar 2.

Authors

Kay Bridger¹, Blerina Kellezi², Denise Kendrick¹, Jade Kettlewell¹, Jain Holmes¹, Stephen Timmons³, Isabel Andrews¹, Stephen Fallon¹, Kate Radford⁴

Affiliations

¹ Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
² Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
³ Business School, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
⁴ Division of Rehabilitation, Aging and Wellbeing, School of Medicine, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.

Abstract

Objective: Injuries can have a long-lasting effect on ability to return to work, but there is little research on which outcomes are most important to patients. This study aims to identify and prioritise return-to-work outcomes important to patients for evaluating vocational rehabilitation interventions.

Methods: Nominal group technique focus group with trauma patients.

Results: Focus group participants (n = 6) included mostly traumatic brain injuries, a range of occupation types, ages and both genders. Participants identified and prioritised their eight most important outcomes which were: sense of purpose and life satisfaction, understanding the impact of injury, assessment of readiness to return to work, using SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) goals, facilitated reintegration to work, assessing capacity to return to work, collaboration between key stakeholders and improved employer and employee knowledge. Many of these were measures of the process of, rather than change outcomes of vocational rehabilitation.

Conclusions: The range of outcomes identified by trauma patients highlights the complex process of return to work and the need for vocational rehabilitation evaluations to incorporate a broader range of outcomes. Measures of the process of vocational rehabilitation are also important to trauma patients and should be included in such evaluations.

Keywords: Traumatic injuries; lived experience; patient outcomes; vocational rehabilitation.