↓ Skip to main content

Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders’ Perspectives
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10926-018-9770-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-France Coutu, France Légaré, Marie-José Durand, Dawn Stacey, Marie-Elise Labrecque, Marc Corbière, Lesley Bainbridge

Abstract

Purpose To establish the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a shared decision-making (SDM) model in work rehabilitation. Methods We used a sequential mixed-methods design with diverse stakeholder groups (representatives of private and public employers, insurers, and unions, as well as workers having participated in a work rehabilitation program). First, a survey using a self-administered questionnaire enabled stakeholders to rate their level of agreement with the model's acceptability and feasibility and propose modifications, if necessary. Second, eight focus groups representing key stakeholders (n = 34) and four one-on-one interviews with workers were conducted, based on the questionnaire results. For each stakeholder group, we computed the percentage of agreement with the model's acceptability and feasibility and performed thematic analyses of the transcripts. Results Less than 50% of each stakeholder group initially agreed with the overall acceptability and feasibility of the model. Stakeholders proposed 37 modifications to the objectives, 17 to the activities, and 39 to improve the model's feasibility. Based on in-depth analysis of the transcripts, indicators were added to one objective, an interview guide was added as proposed by insurers to ensure compliance of the SDM process with insurance contract requirements, and one objective was reformulated. Conclusion Despite initially low agreement with the model's acceptability on the survey, subsequent discussions led to three minor changes and contributed to the model's ultimate acceptability and feasibility. Later steps will involve assessing the extent of implementation of the model in real rehabilitation settings to see if other modifications are necessary before assessing its impact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 14 29%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Psychology 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,851,325
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#457
of 617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,700
of 296,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.