MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415582309 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaf161.1978

A review of vocational rehabilitation programs for persons with acquired physical disabilities

2025· article· en· W4415582309 on OpenAlexaff
M Zainal, Y. S. Tan, Samuel Joe, Miho Asano

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOService (business)RehabilitationSet (abstract data type)Vocational educationMEDLINEService providerMinimum Data Set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Well-designed vocational rehabilitation programs (VRP) are necessary to ensure that persons with acquired physical disabilities (PAPD) receive the optimal support to return to work. The aim of our review was to summarize the characteristics of VRP that support PAPD to return to work. Methods We conducted a scoping review based on the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched the PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases during March 2023. To be included, studies must (i) be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, (ii) be available in the English language, and (iii) describe a VRP for PAPD. We added a grey literature review to better understand local VRP. We summarized the characteristics and services offered within the VRP narratively. Results We screened 2847 articles and included 20 in our review. These 20 articles discussed 16 VRP. We identified 46 unique service components from these 16 VRP and categorized the service components into six domains - vocational, physical, financial, social, psychological and others. The vocational domain comprised the majority of components identified (n = 18, 40%). However, no VRP was exactly alike. Conclusions A wide range of services in VRP can facilitate PAPD to achieve their return-to-work goals. Our review is useful for VRP providers to enhance existing VRP or to design new ones. We recommend that VRP offer a set of standardized services with the option of expanding services based on emerging needs of service users. Our scoping review provides a valuable evidence synthesis of the services offered within the field of vocational rehabilitation. Future research to better understand the effectiveness of VRP is warranted. Key messages • We identified 46 unique services across 16 vocational rehabilitation programs internationally. • This information can be useful for vocational rehabilitation providers to consider while implementing their own practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207