Stakeholder perspectives on a return-to-work cognitive intervention after stroke.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-18 DOI:10.1177/02692155251414362
Nicole Yun Ching Chen, Andrea Chee, Yanhong Dong
{"title":"Stakeholder perspectives on a return-to-work cognitive intervention after stroke.","authors":"Nicole Yun Ching Chen, Andrea Chee, Yanhong Dong","doi":"10.1177/02692155251414362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo investigate stakeholder experiences on return-to-work after stroke and preferences to co-design a return-to-work cognitive intervention, addressing a gap in post-stroke rehabilitation.DesignIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted and reflexive thematic analysis guided by Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach was employed to analyse transcribed data, with iterative coding to identify themes until thematic saturation was achieved.SettingCommunity, work, and healthcare settings.ParticipantsTwenty purposively sampled participants across four stakeholder groups: stroke survivors (<i>n</i> = 7), caregivers (<i>n</i> = 4), healthcare professionals (<i>n</i> = 5), and employers (<i>n</i> = 4).Main measuresStakeholder perspectives on (i) the return-to-work process after stroke and (ii) preferences for the design and delivery of a return-to-work cognitive intervention after stroke.ResultsThree core themes emerged: (i) barriers to return-to-work, (ii) intervention content, and (iii) intervention delivery. Each theme comprised several subthemes and dimensions that offered deeper insight into participants' perspectives. Barriers to return-to-work encompassed lack of awareness of resources, ineligibility of support schemes, and lack of understanding from workplace. Intervention content comprised subthemes of awareness, acceptance and adjustment, goal setting, strategies for self-management, and navigating the return-to-work journey. Intervention delivery included programme structure, social support, format and accessibility. While there was broad agreement, stakeholders also expressed divergent priorities shaped by their roles and experiences.ConclusionsThis study synthesises lived experiences, clinical expertise, and employer insights from stakeholders to inform the co-design of a return-to-work cognitive intervention. This work advances a paradigm shift towards a patient-centred and ecological approach to improve post-stroke workforce reintegration.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"946-958"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155251414362","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate stakeholder experiences on return-to-work after stroke and preferences to co-design a return-to-work cognitive intervention, addressing a gap in post-stroke rehabilitation.DesignIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted and reflexive thematic analysis guided by Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach was employed to analyse transcribed data, with iterative coding to identify themes until thematic saturation was achieved.SettingCommunity, work, and healthcare settings.ParticipantsTwenty purposively sampled participants across four stakeholder groups: stroke survivors (n = 7), caregivers (n = 4), healthcare professionals (n = 5), and employers (n = 4).Main measuresStakeholder perspectives on (i) the return-to-work process after stroke and (ii) preferences for the design and delivery of a return-to-work cognitive intervention after stroke.ResultsThree core themes emerged: (i) barriers to return-to-work, (ii) intervention content, and (iii) intervention delivery. Each theme comprised several subthemes and dimensions that offered deeper insight into participants' perspectives. Barriers to return-to-work encompassed lack of awareness of resources, ineligibility of support schemes, and lack of understanding from workplace. Intervention content comprised subthemes of awareness, acceptance and adjustment, goal setting, strategies for self-management, and navigating the return-to-work journey. Intervention delivery included programme structure, social support, format and accessibility. While there was broad agreement, stakeholders also expressed divergent priorities shaped by their roles and experiences.ConclusionsThis study synthesises lived experiences, clinical expertise, and employer insights from stakeholders to inform the co-design of a return-to-work cognitive intervention. This work advances a paradigm shift towards a patient-centred and ecological approach to improve post-stroke workforce reintegration.

利益相关者对中风后重返工作岗位认知干预的看法。
目的了解利益相关者对脑卒中后重返工作岗位的体验,以及共同设计脑卒中后重返工作岗位认知干预的偏好,以弥补脑卒中后康复的空白。我们进行了深入的半结构化访谈,并采用Braun和Clarke的六阶段方法指导下的反思性主题分析来分析转录的数据,通过迭代编码来确定主题,直到主题饱和为止。设置社区、工作和医疗保健设置。参与者:有目的地从四个利益相关者群体中抽取20名参与者:中风幸存者(n = 7)、护理人员(n = 4)、医疗保健专业人员(n = 5)和雇主(n = 4)。利益相关者对(i)中风后重返工作的过程和(ii)中风后重返工作的认知干预的设计和交付的偏好的观点。结果出现了三个核心主题:(i)重返工作岗位的障碍,(ii)干预内容,(iii)干预交付。每个主题都包括几个子主题和维度,这些主题和维度可以更深入地了解参与者的观点。重返工作岗位的障碍包括缺乏对资源的认识,不符合支持计划的资格,以及缺乏工作场所的理解。干预内容包括意识、接受和调整、目标设定、自我管理策略和重返工作之旅的导航等子主题。提供干预措施包括方案结构、社会支持、形式和可及性。虽然达成了广泛共识,但利益攸关方也表达了因其角色和经验而形成的不同优先事项。本研究综合了生活经验、临床专业知识和来自利益相关者的雇主见解,为回归工作认知干预的共同设计提供了信息。这项工作推进了向以患者为中心和生态方法的范式转变,以改善卒中后劳动力的重新融入。
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
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
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
小红书