Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorAasdahl, Lene
dc.contributor.authorPape, Kristine
dc.contributor.authorJensen, Chris
dc.contributor.authorVasseljen, Ottar
dc.contributor.authorBraathen, Tore
dc.contributor.authorJohnsen, Roar
dc.contributor.authorFimland, Marius Steiro
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-13T11:20:04Z
dc.date.available2018-06-13T11:20:04Z
dc.date.created2017-04-08T18:51:01Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationJournal of occupational rehabilitation. 2017, 1-10.nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn1053-0487
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2501413
dc.description.abstractPurpose To explore the usefulness of the Readiness for return to work scale in individuals participating in occupational rehabilitation, by assessing the association between the scale and return to work (RTW), and comparing the scale to a question assessing individuals’ expectations about length of sick leave. Method Prospective cohort study with 9 months follow-up. Participants took part in one of two randomized clinical trials. Associations between the Readiness for RTW scale and RTW was analyzed using linear and logistic regression, with adjustment for age, gender and education. The Readiness for RTW scale was compared to a self-reported question assessing participants’ expectations about length of sick leave using adjusted/pseudo R2. Results For participants not working (n = 96), high scores on two dimensions (Prepared for action—self-evaluative and Prepared for action—behavioral) were associated with a higher probability of sustainable RTW and more working days. For those working (n = 121), high scores on the Uncertain maintenance dimension was associated with a lower probability of sustainable RTW and less working days. Generally, models including the Readiness for RTW dimensions were not as good at explaining work outcomes as models including a single expectation question. Stage allocation, allocating participants to the dimension with the highest score, was problematic due to several tied scores between (not necessarily adjacent) dimensions. Conclusions Three of the Readiness for RTW dimensions were associated with RTW. However, several weaknesses with the Readiness for RTW scale were established and we particularly do not recommend the stage allocation approach for clinical use in its current form.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleAssociations Between the Readiness for Return to Work Scale and Return to Work: A Prospective Studynb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionnb_NO
dc.rights.holder© The Author(s) 2017nb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber1-10nb_NO
dc.source.journalJournal of occupational rehabilitationnb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10926-017-9705-2
dc.identifier.cristin1464538
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 238015nb_NO
cristin.unitcode222,56,3,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for helse-, sosial- og velferdsfag
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal