[Holistic clarification of the need for intervention at the interface of rehabilitation and occupational medicine when work participation is at risk]. / Ganzheitliche Klärung des Interventionsbedarfs bei gefährdeter beruflicher Teilhabe an der Schnittstelle von Rehabilitation und Betriebsmedizin: Eine Machbarkeitsstudie.

Introduction: For employees whose work participation is at risk, a comprehensive and workplace-oriented diagnosis is required in order to understand the health problems and to support affected persons with individual solutions. We developed a novel diagnostic service to ensure work participation that combines rehabilitative and occupational health medicine. The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate the implementation and to analyze changes in health and working ability. Methods: The observational study (German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00024522) included employees with health restrictions and limited working ability. Participants received an initial consultation from an occupational health physician, a 2-day holistic diagnostics work-up at a rehabilitation center and up to four follow-up consultations. Questionnaire data collected at the initial consultation and at the first and last follow-up consultations included subjective working ability (0-10 points) and general health (0-10). Results: Data from 27 participants were analyzed. The participants were 63% female and on average 46 years old (standard deviation, SD = 11.5). From the initial consultation to the final follow-up consultation, participants reported improvement in their general health (difference = 1.52; 95% confidence interval. CI: 0.37-2.67; d = 0.97). Discussion and conclusion: The model project GIBI offers low-threshold access to a confidential, comprehensive and workplace-oriented diagnostic service to support work participation. Successful implementation of GIBI requires intensive cooperation between occupational health physicians and rehabilitation centers. To evaluate the effectiveness, a randomized controlled trial (n = 210) with a waiting list control group is currently underway.

A comprehensive diagnostic service to clarify intervention needs when work participation is at risk: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (GIBI, DRKS00027577).

BACKGROUND: Effective care services for people whose work participation is at risk require low-threshold access, a comprehensive diagnostic clarification of intervention needs, a connection to the workplace and job demands, and interdisciplinary collaboration between key stakeholders at the interface of rehabilitation and occupational medicine. We have developed a comprehensive diagnostic service to clarify intervention needs for employees with health restrictions and limited work ability: this service is initiated by occupational health physicians. METHODS/DESIGN: Our randomized controlled trial tests the effectiveness of a comprehensive diagnostic service for clarifying intervention needs (GIBI: Comprehensive clarification of the need for intervention for people whose work participation is at risk). The comprehensive intervention comprises three elements: initial consultation, two-day diagnostics at a rehabilitation center and follow-up consultations. We will include 210 employees with health restrictions and limited work ability, who are identified by occupational health physicians. All individuals will receive an initial consultation with their occupational health physician to discuss their health, work ability and job demands. After this, half the individuals are randomly assigned to the intervention group and the other half to the waiting-list control group. Individuals in the intervention group start two-day diagnostics, carried out by a multi-professional rehabilitation team in a rehabilitation center, shortly after the initial consultation. The diagnostics will allow first recommendations for improving work participation. The implementation of these recommendations is supported by an occupational health physician in four follow-up consultations. The control group will receive the comprehensive two-day diagnostic service and subsequent follow-up consultations six months after the initial consultation. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial is self-rated work ability assessed using the Work Ability Score (0 to 10 points) six months after study inclusion. Secondary outcomes include a range of patient-reported outcomes regarding physical and mental health, impairment, and the physical and mental demands of jobs. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial is designed to test the effects of a new complex intervention involving a comprehensive clarification of intervention needs in order to promote work participation and prevent the worsening of health and work disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00027577, February 01, 2022).

[Group Discussions in Health Services Research - Part 2: Reflections on The Concept of Group, Moderation and Analysis of Group Discussions as well as Online Group Discussion]. / Gruppendiskussionen in der Versorgungsforschung ­ Teil 2: Überlegungen zum Begriff der Gruppe, zur Moderation und Auswertung von Gruppendiskussionen sowie zur Methode der Online-Gruppendiskussion.

This article is the second of 2 articles on group discussions in health services research, written by the Qualitative Methods Working Group of the German Network for Health Care Research (DNVF). It starts with theoretical considerations on the concept of groups, and provides specific knowledge about groups in general and the behaviour of individual group members in particular, which is relevant for the design and interpretation of interaction processes in the group context. The following sections deal with the processuality of group discussions, moderation styles and techniques as well as reflections on possible subjects and methods of analysis. Presentation of results and text passages which unveil the interaction structure of several discussion participants are also discussed here. Finally, insights into the special features, potentials and challenges of group discussions via online platforms are provided. Together, the two articles provide an overview of the most important aspects of the application of group discussions in the field of health services research.

[Group Discussions in Health Services Research - Part 1: Introduction and Deliberations on Selection of Method and Planning]. / Gruppendiskussionen in der Versorgungsforschung ­ Teil 1: Einführung und Überlegungen zur Methodenwahl und Planung.

Health services researchers focus on the players, structures and impact of health care in "real life". They investigate how social aspects, financing, organizational structures, technologies and personal attitudes affect the process and outcomes of health care. Qualitative research methods are used here, which address how people act according to their unique living conditions (outside the context of experimental studies). Different methods of debriefing groups are essential for qualitative health services research. In 2 subsequent articles, we aim to outline the diverse facets and possible range of implementation of the above-mentioned methods, in order to highlight the potential of debriefing groups in health services research (focus groups or group discussions) using these methods. In the current article, we would like to encourage researchers to reflect on relevant topics such as the selection of an appropriate method, the planning and undertaking of investigations including sampling methods, and questions regarding ethics and privacy. A follow-up article (in preparation) will deal with theoretical considerations of the term "group", as well as with the process of moderating discussions, methods of analyzing data and (qualitative) online research.

[Environmental factors and the promotion of participation. The Perspective of medical rehabilitation]. / Umweltfaktoren und Teilhabeförderung. Die Perspektive der medizinischen Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), as well as the main goal of enabling participation, are of fundamental importance for medical rehabilitation. According to the logic of the ICF and its underlying multidimensional model of functioning and disability, the participation of a person can be influenced by modelling environmental factors. OBJECTIVES: This article presents environmental factors as defined by the ICF in the context of medical rehabilitation and aims to answer to what extent environmental factors are already involved in medical rehabilitation and if there are further environmental factors with the potential of being involved in interventions for improvement of participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analysis of documents with relevance to medical rehabilitation was done. Text passages that referred to environmental factors were linked to the environmental factor codes of the ICF. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The ICF and its underlying model of functioning and disability provide a conceptual framework both for making the current usage of environmental factors apparent and for deriving and developing new intervention approaches with the involvement of environmental factors. The analysis of documents showed that environmental factor codes vary in how well they are represented in these documents. There are environmental factor codes that are barely or not at all represented, but do have potential to contribute to the improvement of participation.

Cooperative leadership as a condition for patient-reported rehabilitation success.

Introduction: Rehabilitation is a complex intervention that takes place in a complex setting. The MeeR project (characteristics of successful rehabilitation facilities) aims to identify complex conditions of successful rehabilitation outcomes. Methods: A project with a sequential mixed-methods study design with a quantitative prestudy and a qualitative main study was applied. In the quantitative study, quality assurance data of the German Pension Insurance was used to (1) develop and compute a multifacet z-standardized outcome index based on patient-reported outcome data, (2) rank k = 273 orthopedic rehabilitation facilities comprising n = 112,895 patients and k = 86 cardiac rehabilitation institutions comprising n = 30,299 patients based on their outcome index score by means of a league table, and (3) adjust the ranking by basic patient characteristics (age, gender, diagnosis, weeks out of work prior to rehabilitation, application for pension). In the qualitative main study, k = 6 rehabilitation facilities (orthopedic and cardiac rehabilitation centers) were recruited based on the results of the quantitative analysis: three facilities that ranked top 10% and three facilities that ranked lowest 10% of the adjusted league table. All six rehabilitation facilities were visited each for 1 week by two researchers. We conducted participant observations, expert interviews with medical and administrative leaders, group discussions with rehab team members, and group discussions with patients. Subsequently, a systematic comparison of the results of the upper and lower 10% facilities was conducted to identify those characteristics that distinguished those institutions from one another. Results: One of the three clusters of characteristics that distinguished the above and below 10% facilities related to teamwork or interdisciplinary cooperation: among others, the extent of interdisciplinary cooperation was higher in the rehabilitation facilities with a higher degree of success, the leading medical doctors were less dominant in these institutions, and there was also a more comprehensive representation of the team within team meetings, i.e., the quality and amount of interdisciplinary cooperation were higher in these institutions compared to rehabilitation facilities with a lower level of success. Discussion: This project provided qualitative evidence for the role of interdisciplinary cooperation and collaborative leadership and its different facets for patient-related successful rehabilitation in orthopedic and cardiac rehabilitation. It provides valuable insights into the fabric and structure of a rehabilitation institution and a variety of target points for team development and group-leading interventions.

Barriers to Physical Activity in Low Back Pain Patients following Rehabilitation: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Promoting health-enhancing physical activity following rehabilitation is a well-known challenge. This study analysed the barriers to leisure time activity among low back pain patients. METHODS: A subset of 192 low back pain patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial promoting physical activity was analysed. Physical activity, barriers, and sociodemographic and indication-related variables were assessed by a questionnaire. Differences in barriers between active and inactive participants were tested by Pearson's chi squared test. A logistic regression model was fitted to identify influencing factors on physical activity at six months following rehabilitation. RESULTS: Inactive and active participants differed significantly in nine of the 19 barriers assessed. The adjusted regression model showed associations of level of education (OR = 5.366 [1.563; 18.425]; p value = 0.008) and fear of pain (OR = 0.612 [0.421; 0.889]; p value = 0.010) with physical activity. The barriers included in the model failed to show any statistically significant association after adjustment for sociodemographic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Low back pain patients especially with a low level of education and fear of pain seem to need tailored support in overcoming barriers to physical activity. This study is registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004878).