Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesThe ROWTATE intervention helps people experiencing trauma to return to work (RTW) through vocational rehabilitation (VR) support from occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs). This study aims to explore and understand the acceptability of VR after traumatic injury for patients, therapists and employers.Design and settingQualitative interviews in eight major trauma regions, UK.ParticipantsInterviews were undertaken with a range of stakeholders—15 patients, 15 therapists and 6 employers. Data were analysed using the theoretical framework of acceptability.ResultsStakeholders understood the aim of the intervention was to support people to RTW and perceived it as effective in achieving this. Patients and therapists understood the benefits of working with a combination of occupational therapy and clinical psychology. The intervention fits with the values of patients wanting to recover, therapists wanting to offer support and line managers wanting to meet employer and employee needs.Patients reported they could not have achieved RTW without the intervention, and their therapist helped them feel less alone. Therapists felt that their work was rewarding, effective and had good outcomes. Patients perceived remote delivery as less burdensome than attending in person. Therapists felt they wasted time on non-patient activity, such as (re-)arranging appointments.Employers discussed the difficulty of balancing employer and employee needs and managing uncertainty. Some workplace policies lacked flexibility, and without the ROWTATE intervention, employers lacked confidence in supporting employees RTW.ConclusionsA VR intervention delivered remotely by OTs and CPs is acceptable to patients, therapists and employers.Trial registration numberISRCTN43115471.

Few previous studies have considered the experiences of people with long covid returning to work beyond symptoms in terms of employer and other support factors. The aim of this research was to understand the experience of returning to work for those with long covid symptoms in contrast to the non-long covid group who had not experienced COVID-19 during the time restrictions were imposed to limit the spread of COVID-19 infection. Twenty-one participants with long covid and 13 participants who had not had COVID-19 were interviewed. Themes were identified from transcripts using framework analysis. Participants with long covid experienced difficulties returning to work, particularly from fatigue, cognitive symptoms and breathlessness. Symptoms were heterogeneous and fluctuated in severity over time. A lack of understanding from colleagues and managers sometimes led to a premature return to work without adequate support, associated with further long covid relapse. Outside-of-work, support was salient for a successful return to work. The standard phased return offered by employers may be too short and rigid for some people with long covid. They may benefit from a tailored intervention to support a return to work that targets symptom management, and engages with work colleagues, managers, and family members.

Stroke incidence is rising among working-age adults in high-income countries. Employers often lack knowledge and skills to support return-to-work post-stroke. In the United Kingdom, nearly 40% of stroke survivors stop working. Vocational rehabilitation is rarely accessible, and self-guided resources often lack tools to support practical application. This study developed a self-guided return-to-work toolkit for stroke survivors and employers. Steps 1–4 of the six-step Intervention Mapping approach were followed. Intervention goal, content, and design were informed by three online workshops with employers (n = 12) and meetings with an advisory group (n = 20), including stroke charity and trade union representatives, stroke survivors, healthcare professionals, and experts in human resources and vocational rehabilitation. Theory-based pretesting (task-based usability review, advisory group discussions) was shaped by prototype review with advisory group members, including employers (n = 4), stroke survivors (n = 7), and healthcare professionals (n = 4). Framework analysis was used to structure feedback related to acceptability, ease of use/learnability, accessibility, inclusivity, perceived usefulness, and technical or environmental issues. No personal data were analysed. The toolkit aims to empower stroke survivors and employers to plan and manage a sustainable return-to-work post-stroke. It exists as two Xerte eLearning packages, with accessibility features such as screen reader compatibility and keyboard navigation. The toolkit contains theory- and evidence-based content for a) stroke survivors and b) employers, and includes downloadable PDF tools. Stroke survivor-focused content provides guidance on identifying and disclosing support needs to employers. Employer-focused content guides employers in increasing and maintaining understanding of stroke survivors’ work abilities, and implementing and monitoring tailored reasonable adjustments. Pretesting indicated the toolkit is comprehensive, empowering, and fosters open communication, offering key information and practical tools. Minor refinements and technical improvements were suggested. This toolkit addresses a gap in return-to-work guidance in the United Kingdom. Refinement, testing, and evaluation in real-world settings are needed.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of delivering a vocational rehabilitation intervention (Return to Work After Trauma—ROWTATE), remotely to individuals recovering from traumatic injuries. The primary objectives were to assess therapists’ training and competence, adapt the intervention and training for remote delivery and assess the feasibility and fidelity of remote delivery to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial.DesignA mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating (1) telerehabilitation qualitative literature review, (2) qualitative interviews preintervention and postintervention with therapists and patients, (3) a team objective structured clinical examination to assess competency, (4) usefulness of training, attitudes towards (15-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale) and confidence in (4-item Evidence Based Practice Confidence Scale) evidence-based practice, intervention delivery confidence (8-bespoke questions) and intervention behaviour determinants (51-items Theoretical Domains Framework) and (5) single-arm intervention delivery feasibility study.SettingThe study was conducted in two UK Major Trauma Centres. The intervention and training were adapted for remote delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.ParticipantsTherapists: Seven occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs) were trained, and six participated in competency assessment. Seven OTs and CPs participated in preintervention interviews and surveys; six completed post-intervention interviews and four completed post-training surveys. Patients: 10 patients were enrolled in the single-arm feasibility study and 4 of these participated in postintervention qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria included therapists involved in vocational rehabilitation delivery and patients admitted to major trauma centres. Exclusion criteria included participation in other vocational rehabilitation trials or those who had returned to work or education for at least 80% of preinjury hours. Intervention: The ROWTATE vocational rehabilitation intervention was delivered remotely by trained OTs and CPs. Training included competency assessments, mentoring and adaptation for telerehabilitation. The intervention was delivered over multiple sessions, with content tailored to individual patient needs.ResultsTherapists found the training useful, reported positive attitudes (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale mean=2.9 (SD 0.9)) and high levels of confidence in delivering evidence-based practice (range 75%–100%) and the ROWTATE intervention (range 80%–100%). Intervention barriers identified pretraining became facilitators post-training. Half the therapists needed additional support post-training through mentoring or additional training. The intervention and training were successfully adapted for remote delivery. High levels of fidelity (intervention components delivered: OTs=84.5%, CPs=92.9%) and session attendance rates were found (median: OT=97%, CP=100%). Virtually all sessions were delivered remotely (OT=98%, CP=100%). The intervention was acceptable to patients and therapists; both considered face-to-face delivery where necessary was important.ConclusionsThe ROWTATE intervention was delivered remotely with high fidelity and attendance and was acceptable to patients and therapists. Definitive trial key changes include modifying therapist training, competency assessment, face-to-face intervention delivery where necessary and addressing lower fidelity intervention components.Trial registration numberISRCTN74668529.

A key goal for working age stroke survivors is to return to work, yet only around 50% achieve this at 12 months. Currently, there is limited evidence of effectiveness of early stroke-specialist vocational rehabilitation (ESSVR) interventions from randomised controlled trials. This study examined fidelity to ESSVR and explored social and structural factors which may have influenced implementation in the RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) randomised controlled trial. Mixed-methods process evaluation assessing intervention fidelity and incorporating longitudinal case-studies exploring stroke survivors' experiences of support to return to work. Normalisation Process Theory, and the Conceptual Model for Implementation Fidelity, informed data collection and analysis. Sixteen sites across England and Wales participated in RETAKE. Forty-eight occupational therapists (OTs), supported by 6 mentors experienced in vocational rehabilitation (VR), delivered the intervention (duration 12 months) between February 2018 and April 2022. Twenty-six participants (15 ESSVR, 11 usual care (UC)) were included in longitudinal case-studies. An additional 18 participants (8 ESSVR and 10 UC) were interviewed once. Nineteen OTs, 6 mentors and 19 service managers were interviewed. Fidelity was measured for 39 ESSVR participants; mean fidelity score was 78.8% (SD:19.2%, range 31-100%). Comparison of the experiences of ESSVR and UC participants indicated duration and type of support to return to work were perceived to be better for ESSVR participants. They received early, co-ordinated support including employer liaison and workplace adjustments where appropriate. In contrast, UC participants reported limited or no VR or return to work support from health professionals. Typically, UC support lasted 2-8 weeks, with poor communication and co-ordination between rehabilitation providers. Mentor support for OTs appeared to increase fidelity. Service managers indicated ESSVR would enhance post-stroke services. ESSVR was valued by participants and was delivered with fidelity; implementation appeared to be facilitated by mentor support for OTs.

Few previous studies have considered the experiences of people with long covid returning to work beyond symptoms in terms of employer and other support factors. The aim of this research was to understand the experience of returning to work for those with long covid symptoms in contrast to the non-long covid group who had not experienced COVID-19 during the time restrictions were imposed to limit the spread of COVID-19 infection. Twenty-one participants with long covid and 13 participants who had not had COVID-19 were interviewed. Themes were identified from transcripts using framework analysis. Participants with long covid experienced difficulties returning to work, particularly from fatigue, cognitive symptoms and breathlessness. Symptoms were heterogeneous and fluctuated in severity over time. A lack of understanding from colleagues and managers sometimes led to a premature return to work without adequate support, associated with further long covid relapse. Outside-of-work, support was salient for a successful return to work. The standard phased return offered by employers may be too short and rigid for some people with long covid. They may benefit from a tailored intervention to support a return to work that targets symptom management, and engages with work colleagues, managers, and family members.

Background Integrating complex interventions within healthcare settings can be challenging. Mentoring can be embedded within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to upskill and support those delivering the intervention. This study aimed to understand, from a realist perspective, how mentoring worked to support implementation fidelity for occupational therapists (OTs) delivering a vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention within the context of an RCT. Methods A realist evaluation using secondary data (emails, mentoring record forms, interviews) collected as part of an RCT. Three researchers coded the data following content analysis, focused on refining or refuting an initial programme theory by exploring the interactions between context, mechanisms, and outcomes. The research team met to further refine the programme theories. Results Data from 584 emails, 184 mentoring record forms, and 25 interviews were analysed following a realist approach. We developed a programme theory consisting of two contexts (trial set-up, ongoing mentoring), nine mechanisms (collective understanding, monitoring, timely support, positive reinforcement, reflective practice, support data completeness, facilitation strategy, shared learning experience, management of research and clinical duties), and three outcomes (improved confidence, improved fidelity, reduced contamination). Conclusions Offering mentoring support to OTs delivering a VR intervention as part of an RCT improves intervention fidelity and reduces the risk of contamination. It improves OTs’ understanding of the differences between their clinical and research roles and increases their confidence and competence in trial paperwork completion and identification of potential contamination issues.

ObjectiveTo identify facilitators and barriers to fit note certification among nurses, occupational therapists, pharmacists and physiotherapists (NOPPs), and identify ongoing training needs.DesignAn online survey informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to gather data from NOPPs to identify implementation barriers and personal, social and environmental influences on fit note certification.Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Mean TDF domain scores were calculated (mean scores ≤3.5 indicated barriers, ≥5 indicated facilitators). Free-text data were thematically analysed using the TDF.SettingUnited Kingdom.ParticipantsThe survey was completed by 198 respondents: physiotherapists (n=66, 33%), occupational therapists (n=49, 25%), nurses (n=44, 22%), pharmacists (n=39, 20%).ResultsOnly 47 (24%) of survey respondents had certified fit notes; 66 (37%) had completed training, most pharmacists had done neither. TDF analysis indicated three barriers: 1) ‘skills’ (being able to certify, review and practice completing fit notes) (mean=3.32, SD=0.75, 95% CI 1.84, 4.80); 2) ‘goals’ (the level of priority given to fit note completion) (mean=3.22, SD=0.51, 95% CI 2.21, 4.22); 3) ‘memory, attention and decision processes’ (disagreeing with the statement: ‘certifying fit notes is something I do automatically’) (mean=2.73, SD=0). Free-text comments suggested that low ‘skills’ rates may be due to lack of opportunity to do training. The low priority afforded to completing fit notes, which was not done automatically as part of their role, may reflect the lack of organisational policies/guidelines or priorities.The only facilitator identified was ‘belief about consequences’ (mean=5.74, SD=0.12, 95% CI: 5.50, 5.98). Participants believed that certifying fit notes was useful and worthwhile.ConclusionsLegislation allowing NOPPs to undertake fit note certification does not appear to have been successfully implemented. Further resources are required to provide NOPPs with the necessary skills/confidence (e.g., via training) to certify fit notes, supporting more patients to return to and remain in work.

Background Little guidance exists regarding how best to upskill and support those delivering complex healthcare interventions to ensure robust trial outcomes and implementation fidelity. Mentoring was provided to occupational therapists (OTs) delivering a complex vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention to stroke survivors. This study aimed to explore mentors’ roles in supporting OTs with intervention delivery and fidelity, and to describe factors affecting the mentoring process and intervention delivery. Methods Quantitative data (duration, mode and total time of mentoring support) was extracted from mentoring records and emails between mentors and OTs, alongside qualitative data on barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Semi-structured interviews with mentors ( n  = 6) and OTs ( n  = 19) explored experiences and perceptions of intervention training, delivery and the mentoring process. Mean total and monthly time spent mentoring were calculated per trial site. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results Forty-one OTs across 16 sites were mentored between March 2018 and April 2020. Most mentoring was provided by phone or Microsoft Teams (range: 88.6–100%), with the remainder via email and SMS (Short Message Service) text messages. Mentors suggested strategies to enhance trial recruitment, improved OTs’ understanding of- and adherence to trial processes, intervention delivery and fidelity, and facilitated independent problem-solving. Barriers to mentoring included OT non-attendance at mentoring sessions and mentors struggling to balance mentoring with clinical roles. Facilitators included support from the trial team and mentors having protected time for mentoring. Conclusions Mentoring supported mentee OTs in various ways, but it remains unclear to what extent the OTS would have been able to deliver the intervention without mentoring support, or how this might have impacted fidelity. Successful implementation of mentoring alongside new complex interventions may increase the likelihood of intervention effectiveness being observed and sustained in real-life contexts. Further research is needed to investigate how mentors could be selected, upskilled, funded and mentoring provided to maximise impact. The clinical- and cost-effectiveness of mentoring as an implementation strategy and its impact on fidelity also requires testing in a future trial. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275 . Registered on 13th March 2018.

Background Rehabilitation research does not always improve patient outcomes because of difficulties implementing complex health interventions. Identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation fidelity is critical. Not reporting implementation issues wastes research resources and risks erroneously attributing effectiveness when interventions are not implemented as planned, particularly progressing from single to multicentre trials. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity (CFIF) facilitate identification of barriers and facilitators. This review sought to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) affecting implementation in trials of complex rehabilitation interventions for adults with long-term neurological conditions (LTNC) and describe implementation issues. Methods Implementation, complex health interventions and LTNC search terms were developed. Studies of all designs were eligible. Searches involved 11 databases, trial registries and citations. After screening titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently shortlisted studies. A third resolved discrepancies. One reviewer extracted data in two stages; 1) descriptive study data, 2) units of text describing determinants. Data were synthesised by (1) mapping determinants to CFIF and CFIR and (2) thematic analysis. Results Forty-three studies, from 7434 records, reported implementation determinants; 41 reported both barriers and facilitators. Most implied determinants but five used implementation theory to inform recording. More barriers than facilitators were mapped onto CFIF and CFIR constructs. “Patient needs and resources”, “readiness for implementation”, “knowledge and beliefs about the intervention”, “facilitation strategies”, “participant responsiveness” were the most frequently mapped constructs. Constructs relating to the quality of intervention delivery, organisational/contextual aspects and trial-related issues were rarely tapped. Thematic analysis revealed the most frequently reported determinants related to adherence, intervention perceptions and attrition. Conclusions This review has described the barriers and facilitators identified in studies implementing complex interventions for people with LTNCs. Early adoption of implementation frameworks by trialists can simplify identification and reporting of factors affecting delivery of new complex rehabilitation interventions. It is vital to learn from previous experiences to prevent unnecessary repetitions of implementation failure at both trial and service provision levels. Reported facilitators can provide strategies for overcoming implementation issues. Reporting gaps may be due to the lack of standardised reporting methods, researcher ignorance and historical reporting requirements. Systemic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015020423