[Practice recommendations for work-related medical rehabilitation in psychosomatic rehabilitation facilities - results of a Delphi process].

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-06-17 DOI:10.1055/a-2572-4338
Matthias Bethge, Jessica Roder, Stefan Schulder, Hannes Banaschak, Nina Gabriel, Stefanie Freytag, Andrea Budde, Volker Köllner, Michaela Fleck, Bernhard Koch, Frank Rosbiegal, Markus Bassler
{"title":"[Practice recommendations for work-related medical rehabilitation in psychosomatic rehabilitation facilities - results of a Delphi process].","authors":"Matthias Bethge, Jessica Roder, Stefan Schulder, Hannes Banaschak, Nina Gabriel, Stefanie Freytag, Andrea Budde, Volker Köllner, Michaela Fleck, Bernhard Koch, Frank Rosbiegal, Markus Bassler","doi":"10.1055/a-2572-4338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a recently completed randomized controlled trial, we found that work-related medical rehabilitation (WMR) was implemented very differently in rehabilitation facilities. Its additional effects were particularly evident when the emphasis on work-related issues was clearly communicated to participants. We therefore developed practice recommendations for a structured further development of WMR in psychosomatic rehabilitation facilities.In a two-stage Delphi process, 119 recommendations were evaluated by various experts including people who had received psychosomatic WMR. The assessment of the strength of consensus followed the guidelines of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). The results of the first round were discussed with the participants before the second round.A total of 19 and 17 individuals participated in the respective votes. In the second Delphi round, 80 recommendations achieved strong consensus (74.8%) and 24 recommendations achieved consensus (22.4%). Two recommendations received majority approval. One recommendation was rejected by a majority. We reformulated the 106 remaining recommendations according to the AWMF recommendations in order to express the strength of consensus (\"is to\", \"should\", \"can\").The strong consensus on around three quarters of all practice recommendations suggests that the final assessment of the different groups involved was similar. The large number of recommendations that achieved strong consensus indicates the complexity of the intervention. A regular review of the practice recommendations is advisable.</p>","PeriodicalId":54504,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2572-4338","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a recently completed randomized controlled trial, we found that work-related medical rehabilitation (WMR) was implemented very differently in rehabilitation facilities. Its additional effects were particularly evident when the emphasis on work-related issues was clearly communicated to participants. We therefore developed practice recommendations for a structured further development of WMR in psychosomatic rehabilitation facilities.In a two-stage Delphi process, 119 recommendations were evaluated by various experts including people who had received psychosomatic WMR. The assessment of the strength of consensus followed the guidelines of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). The results of the first round were discussed with the participants before the second round.A total of 19 and 17 individuals participated in the respective votes. In the second Delphi round, 80 recommendations achieved strong consensus (74.8%) and 24 recommendations achieved consensus (22.4%). Two recommendations received majority approval. One recommendation was rejected by a majority. We reformulated the 106 remaining recommendations according to the AWMF recommendations in order to express the strength of consensus ("is to", "should", "can").The strong consensus on around three quarters of all practice recommendations suggests that the final assessment of the different groups involved was similar. The large number of recommendations that achieved strong consensus indicates the complexity of the intervention. A regular review of the practice recommendations is advisable.

[身心康复设施中与工作相关的医疗康复的实践建议——德尔菲过程的结果]。
在最近完成的一项随机对照试验中,我们发现与工作相关的医疗康复(WMR)在康复设施中的实施方式非常不同。当对工作相关问题的强调清楚地传达给参与者时,其额外效果尤为明显。因此,我们提出了在心身康复设施中进一步结构化发展WMR的实践建议。在两阶段的德尔菲过程中,119项建议由包括接受过心身WMR的人在内的各种专家进行评估。对共识强度的评估遵循了德国科学医学学会协会(AWMF)的指导方针。第一轮谈判结果在第二轮谈判前与与会各方进行了讨论。共有19人和17人分别参加了投票。在第二轮德尔菲中,有80条建议获得了强烈的共识(74.8%),24条建议获得了共识(22.4%)。有两项建议获得了多数人的批准。其中一项建议被多数人否决。我们根据AWMF的建议重新制定了剩下的106条建议,以表达共识的强度(“是”,“应该”,“可以”)。对大约四分之三的实践建议的强烈共识表明,对所涉及的不同群体的最终评估是相似的。获得强烈共识的大量建议表明干预措施的复杂性。建议定期审查实践建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Zeitschrift Die Rehabilitation richtet sich an Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in Einrichtungen, Forschungsinstitutionen und Trägern der Rehabilitation. Sie berichtet über die medizinischen, gesetzlichen, politischen und gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen und Rahmenbedingungen der Rehabilitation und über internationale Entwicklungen auf diesem Gebiet. Schwerpunkte sind dabei Beiträge zu Rehabilitationspraxis (medizinische, berufliche und soziale Rehabilitation, Qualitätsmanagement, neue Konzepte und Versorgungsmodelle zur Anwendung der ICF, Bewegungstherapie etc.), Rehabilitationsforschung (praxisrelevante Ergebnisse, Methoden und Assessments, Leitlinienentwicklung, sozialmedizinische Fragen), Public Health, Sozialmedizin Gesundheits-System-Forschung sowie die daraus resultierenden Probleme.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信