Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to explore the usefulness and feasibility of comprehensive vocational rehabilitation (C-VR) and less comprehensive vocational rehabilitation (LC-VR) for workers on sick leave due to CMP, from the perspective of patients, professionals, and managers.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were held with patients, professionals, and managers. Using topic lists, interviewees were questioned about barriers to and facilitators of the usefulness and feasibility of C-VR and LC-VR. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by systematic text condensation using thematic analysis.
Results
Thirteen patients (n=6 C-VR, n=7 LC-VR), eight professionals, and nine managers were interviewed. Three themes emerged for usefulness (‘patient factors’, ‘content’, ‘dosage’) and six themes emerged for feasibility (‘satisfaction’, ‘intention to continue use’, ‘perceived appropriateness’, ‘positive/negative effects on target participants’, ‘factors affecting implementation ease or difficulty’, ‘adaptations’). Patients rated both programs as positive. According to adaptations, the professionals reported that they desired more flexibility in content, dosage and choice of program.
Conclusions
The patients reported that both programs were feasible and generally useful. The professionals preferred working with the C-VR, although they disliked the fixed and uniform character of the program. They also mentioned that this program is too extensive for some patients, and that the latter would probably benefit from the LC-VR program. Despite their positive intentions, the managers stated that due to the Dutch healthcare system, implementation of the LC-VR program would be financially unfeasible.
No conflicts of interest
No funding obtained
