Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital and Conventional Rehabilitation Aftercare on Work Ability in Orthopedic Patients: A Longitudinal Study in Germany.
Detlef Schmidt, Jakob Hedin, Anna Pelegrina, Susanne Weyland, Lena-Marie Rittmann, Darko Jekauc
{"title":"Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital and Conventional Rehabilitation Aftercare on Work Ability in Orthopedic Patients: A Longitudinal Study in Germany.","authors":"Detlef Schmidt, Jakob Hedin, Anna Pelegrina, Susanne Weyland, Lena-Marie Rittmann, Darko Jekauc","doi":"10.1007/s10926-025-10284-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of digital rehabilitation aftercare (digIRENA) with conventional rehabilitation aftercare (IRENA) and a control group without organized aftercare in improving work ability among orthopedic patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 1056 orthopedic rehabilitation patients were recruited from multiple rehabilitation clinics in Germany and randomly assigned to three groups: digIRENA (n = 405), IRENA (n = 352), or a control group (n = 299). Work ability was assessed using the short version of the Work Ability Index at four time points: baseline, 13, 26, and 43 weeks post-baseline. Repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to examine longitudinal trends in work ability, with additional analyses to assess the impact of age, gender, and employment status on outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Work ability improved significantly over time in all three groups (F = 37.6, p < 0.01, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.045). In the unadjusted analysis, the interaction between time and group was significant (F = 2.2, p < 0.01, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.006), indicating a steeper initial improvement in the digIRENA group compared to IRENA and control. However, when adjusting for age, gender, and employment status, this difference was no longer significant, suggesting that selection bias and baseline differences explain the unadjusted group effect. Across all groups, younger and unemployed participants showed greater improvements in work ability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In unadjusted comparisons, digital aftercare showed a steeper initial improvement in work ability. However, once key sociodemographic factors were controlled for, these group differences disappeared.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-025-10284-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of digital rehabilitation aftercare (digIRENA) with conventional rehabilitation aftercare (IRENA) and a control group without organized aftercare in improving work ability among orthopedic patients.
Methods: A total of 1056 orthopedic rehabilitation patients were recruited from multiple rehabilitation clinics in Germany and randomly assigned to three groups: digIRENA (n = 405), IRENA (n = 352), or a control group (n = 299). Work ability was assessed using the short version of the Work Ability Index at four time points: baseline, 13, 26, and 43 weeks post-baseline. Repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to examine longitudinal trends in work ability, with additional analyses to assess the impact of age, gender, and employment status on outcomes.
Results: Work ability improved significantly over time in all three groups (F = 37.6, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.045). In the unadjusted analysis, the interaction between time and group was significant (F = 2.2, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.006), indicating a steeper initial improvement in the digIRENA group compared to IRENA and control. However, when adjusting for age, gender, and employment status, this difference was no longer significant, suggesting that selection bias and baseline differences explain the unadjusted group effect. Across all groups, younger and unemployed participants showed greater improvements in work ability.
Conclusion: In unadjusted comparisons, digital aftercare showed a steeper initial improvement in work ability. However, once key sociodemographic factors were controlled for, these group differences disappeared.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law. A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.