Detlef Schmidt, Jakob Hedin, Anna Pelegrina, Susanne Weyland, Lena-Marie Rittmann, Darko Jekauc
{"title":"比较数字化与传统康复后护理对骨科患者工作能力的影响:德国的一项纵向研究。","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":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":2.5000,\"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}","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
摘要
目的:本研究的主要目的是比较数字化康复后护理(digIRENA)与传统康复后护理(IRENA)以及无组织后护理的对照组在提高骨科患者工作能力方面的效果。方法:从德国多家康复诊所招募1056例骨科康复患者,随机分为三组:digIRENA组(n = 405)、IRENA组(n = 352)和对照组(n = 299)。工作能力在四个时间点进行评估:基线、13周、26周和基线后43周。采用重复测量方差分析来检验工作能力的纵向趋势,并进行额外的分析来评估年龄、性别和就业状况对结果的影响。结果:三组患者工作能力随时间的推移均有显著提高(F = 37.6, p 2 = 0.045)。在未调整的分析中,时间和组之间的相互作用是显著的(F = 2.2, p 2 = 0.006),表明与IRENA和对照组相比,digIRENA组的初始改善更陡峭。然而,当调整年龄、性别和就业状况时,这种差异不再显著,这表明选择偏差和基线差异解释了未调整的群体效应。在所有的小组中,年轻和失业的参与者在工作能力方面表现出更大的进步。结论:在未经调整的比较中,数字化护理在工作能力方面表现出更大的初步改善。然而,一旦控制了关键的社会人口因素,这些群体差异就消失了。
Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital and Conventional Rehabilitation Aftercare on Work Ability in Orthopedic Patients: A Longitudinal Study in Germany.
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.