Promoting Return to Work After Vocational Rehabilitation Using a Work-Related Fitness App: Protocol for a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retraining programs in vocational rehabilitation are often characterized by a low level of physical activity, even when targeting jobs with primarily physical demands. They might therefore be accompanied by a decline in functional capacity if the lack of physical activity is not compensated by increased activity during leisure time. The implementation of a work-related exercise app might be a promising approach to promoting a return to work in vocational rehabilitation. We developed the "WORKout-app" which provides exercise plans based on a comparison of the physical demands of the retraining profession and the current functional capacity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the effects of app-based exercise during vocational rehabilitation on perceived work ability (primary outcome), occupational self-efficacy, days of sick leave, and return to work (secondary outcomes). METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with 2 arms (intervention: WORKout-app vs control: treatment as usual) in 4 cohorts of 5 vocational rehabilitation centers in Germany. Participants are nested within retraining classes per vocational rehabilitation center and per cohort assigned to either the intervention condition or the control condition. The target sample size at the participant level is 598. Measurement time points include baseline, the end of rehabilitation, 3 months after the end of rehabilitation, and 6 months after the end of rehabilitation. Linear and generalized linear mixed-effects models are performed to test for treatment differences in outcomes. RESULTS: This study is funded by the German Federal Pension Insurance. The trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00030775) and approved by the Ethics Committee of the German Sport University Cologne (145/2022). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the study will inform researchers and practitioners about the effectiveness of an exercise app developed to counteract the effects of physical inactivity during vocational rehabilitation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50200.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".