A review of vocational rehabilitation programs for persons with acquired physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".