Evidence mapPaperPMID 39383146Full record

Trial reportPloS one2024

The RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) trial: Findings from a mixed-methods process evaluation of the Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) intervention.

David James Clarke, Katie Powers, Diane Trusson, Kristelle Craven, Julie Phillips, Jain Holmes, Christopher McKevitt, Audrey Bowen, Caroline Leigh Watkins, Amanda J Farrin and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Key Outcomes for a Vocational Rehabilitation Intervention for People With Multiple Sclerosis: A Nominal Group Technique Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

David James ClarkeAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6279-1192
Katie PowersCentre for Rehabilitation & Ageing Research Medicine/ Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical School Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Diane TrussonCentre for Rehabilitation & Ageing Research Medicine/ Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical School Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6995-1192
Kristelle CravenCentre for Rehabilitation & Ageing Research Medicine/ Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical School Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Julie PhillipsCentre for Rehabilitation & Ageing Research Medicine/ Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical School Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7213-2801
Jain HolmesCentre for Rehabilitation & Ageing Research Medicine/ Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical School Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2465-102X
Christopher McKevittDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Audrey BowenManchester Centre for Health Psychology & the Geoffrey Jefferson Brain Research Centre MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Caroline Leigh WatkinsApplied Health Research Hub, Stroke Research Team, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9403-3772
Amanda J FarrinClinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Alexandra Wright-HughesClinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Tracey SachHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, Norwich Research Park, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8098-9220
Rachel ChambersDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kate RadfordCentre for Rehabilitation & Ageing Research Medicine/ Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical School Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA key goal for working age stroke survivors is to return to work, yet only around 50% achieve this at 12 months. Currently, there is limited evidence of effectiveness of early stroke-specialist vocational rehabilitation (ESSVR) interventions from randomised controlled trials. This study examined fidelity to ESSVR and explored social and structural factors which may have influenced implementation in the RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) randomised controlled trial.

methodsMixed-methods process evaluation assessing intervention fidelity and incorporating longitudinal case-studies exploring stroke survivors' experiences of support to return to work. Normalisation Process Theory, and the Conceptual Model for Implementation Fidelity, informed data collection and analysis.

resultsSixteen sites across England and Wales participated in RETAKE. Forty-eight occupational therapists (OTs), supported by 6 mentors experienced in vocational rehabilitation (VR), delivered the intervention (duration 12 months) between February 2018 and April 2022. Twenty-six participants (15 ESSVR, 11 usual care (UC)) were included in longitudinal case-studies. An additional 18 participants (8 ESSVR and 10 UC) were interviewed once. Nineteen OTs, 6 mentors and 19 service managers were interviewed. Fidelity was measured for 39 ESSVR participants; mean fidelity score was 78.8% (SD:19.2%, range 31-100%). Comparison of the experiences of ESSVR and UC participants indicated duration and type of support to return to work were perceived to be better for ESSVR participants. They received early, co-ordinated support including employer liaison and workplace adjustments where appropriate. In contrast, UC participants reported limited or no VR or return to work support from health professionals. Typically, UC support lasted 2-8 weeks, with poor communication and co-ordination between rehabilitation providers. Mentor support for OTs appeared to increase fidelity. Service managers indicated ESSVR would enhance post-stroke services.

conclusionsESSVR was valued by participants and was delivered with fidelity; implementation appeared to be facilitated by mentor support for OTs.

Indexed as

Rehabilitation, VocationalReturn to WorkStroke RehabilitationAdultEnglandFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedOccupational TherapistsStroke

Identifiers

PMID39383146
PMCPMC11463838

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.