[X] Close
You are about to erase all the values you have customized, search history, page format, etc.
Click here to RESET all values       Click here to GO BACK without resetting any value
Item 1 of about 1
1. Coutu MF, Légaré F, Durand MJ, Corbière M, Stacey D, Loisel P, Bainbridge L: Fostering shared decision making by occupational therapists and workers involved in accidents resulting in persistent musculoskeletal disorders: a study protocol. Implement Sci; 2011;6:22
PDF icon [Fulltext service] Download fulltext PDF of this article and others, as many as you want.

  • [Source] The source of this record is MEDLINE®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
  • [Title] Fostering shared decision making by occupational therapists and workers involved in accidents resulting in persistent musculoskeletal disorders: a study protocol.
  • BACKGROUND: From many empirical and theoretical points of view, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in work rehabilitation for pain due to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is justified but typically the SDM model applies to a one on one encounter between a healthcare provider and a patient and not to an interdisciplinary team.
  • OBJECTIVES: To adapt and implement an SDM program adapted to the realities of work rehabilitation for pain associated with a MSD.
  • More specific objectives are to adapt an SDM program applicable to existing rehabilitation programs, and to evaluate the extent of implementation of the SDM program in four rehabilitation centres.
  • METHOD: For objective one, we will use a mixed perspective combining a theory-based development program/intervention and a user-based perspective.
  • The users are the occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical coordinators.
  • The strategies for developing an SDM program will include consulting the scientific literature and group consensus with clinicians-experts.
  • A sample of convenience of eight OTs, four clinical coordinators and four psychologists all of whom have been working full-time in MSD rehabilitation for more than two years will be recruited from four collaborating rehabilitation centres.
  • For objective two, using the same criteria as for objective one, we will first train eight OTs in SDM.
  • Second, using a descriptive design, the extent to which the SDM program has been implemented will be assessed through observations of the SDM process.
  • The observation data will be triangulated with the dyadic working alliance questionnaire, and findings from a final individual interview with each OT.
  • A total of five patients per trained OT will be recruited, for a total of 40 patients.
  • Patients will be eligible if they have a work-related disability for more than 12 weeks due to musculoskeletal pain and plan to start their work rehabilitation programs.
  • DISCUSSION: This study will be the first evaluation of the program and it is expected that improvements will be made prior to a broader-scale implementation.
  • The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of decision making, patients' quality of life, and reduce the duration of their work-related disability by improving the services offered during the rehabilitation process.
  • [MeSH-major] Accidents, Occupational. Decision Making. Disabled Persons / rehabilitation. Musculoskeletal Diseases / rehabilitation. Occupational Therapy
  • [MeSH-minor] Female. Humans. Male. Program Development. Program Evaluation. Psychometrics. Rehabilitation Centers. Return to Work. Surveys and Questionnaires

  • MedlinePlus Health Information. consumer health - Disabilities.
  • MedlinePlus Health Information. consumer health - Occupational Health.
  • COS Scholar Universe. author profiles.
  • [Email] Email this result item
    Email the results to the following email address:   [X] Close
  • [Cites] Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Jun;49(443):477-82 [10562751.001]
  • [Cites] Work. 2010;35(2):209-19 [20164616.001]
  • [Cites] BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6 [10987780.001]
  • [Cites] Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Feb 1;26(3):270-81 [11224863.001]
  • [Cites] Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Apr;43(1):5-22 [11311834.001]
  • [Cites] Am J Epidemiol. 2002 Dec 1;156(11):1028-34 [12446259.001]
  • [Cites] Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):93-9 [12679504.001]
  • [Cites] Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jun;50(2):211-21 [12781936.001]
  • [Cites] J Biomed Inform. 2002 Oct-Dec;35(5-6):313-21 [12968780.001]
  • [Cites] Work. 2003;21(3):233-42 [14600327.001]
  • [Cites] Phys Ther. 1992 Apr;72(4):279-90; discussion 291-3 [1533941.001]
  • [Cites] Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Feb 15;20(4):473-7 [7747232.001]
  • [Cites] Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24):2911-8 [9431627.001]
  • [Cites] CMAJ. 1998 Jun 16;158(12):1625-31 [9645178.001]
  • [Cites] Patient Educ Couns. 1998 Mar;33(3):267-79 [9731164.001]
  • [Cites] BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):780-2 [10488014.001]
  • [Cites] Health Expect. 2005 Mar;8(1):34-42 [15713169.001]
  • [Cites] CMAJ. 2005 Jun 7;172(12):1559-67 [15939915.001]
  • [Cites] J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):607-31 [16254759.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2006;15(1):36-45 [16676684.001]
  • [Cites] Health Expect. 2007 Dec;10(4):364-79 [17986073.001]
  • [Cites] Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Dec;64(6):623-49 [17804824.001]
  • [Cites] BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:30 [17937801.001]
  • [Cites] Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526-35 [18752915.001]
  • [Cites] Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Feb 15;25(4 Suppl):1S-33S [10707404.001]
  • (PMID = 21414207.001).
  • [ISSN] 1748-5908
  • [Journal-full-title] Implementation science : IS
  • [ISO-abbreviation] Implement Sci
  • [Language] eng
  • [Publication-type] Journal Article; Multicenter Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • [Publication-country] England
  • [Other-IDs] NLM/ PMC3068973
  • [General-notes] NLM/ Original DateCompleted: 20110714
  •  go-up   go-down


Advertisement





Advertisement