Trial reportClinical rehabilitation2025
Cost consequences analysis of early vocational rehabilitation compared with usual care for stroke survivors.
Trial report in Clinical rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of early vocational rehabilitation versus usual care to support RETurn to work after stroKE: A pragmatic, parallel-arm multicenter, randomized controlled trial.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2025Trial
- Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Return to Work (RTW) Program for Workers with Disabilities in Indonesia: Health, Economic and Productivity Outcomes.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare costs and consequences of Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) with usual care in working age, stroke survivors over 12 months.
designAn economic evaluation nested within the pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised, controlled RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) study.
settingTwenty-one English and Welsh National Health Service (NHS) hospital-based stroke units. A UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken in the base-case and a wider perspective (participant, family, employer and other public services) in a secondary analysis.
participantsA total of 583 stroke survivors age ≥18 years (mean 54.0 years, 69% male).
interventionsParticipants were randomised to ESSVR, an early, individually tailored (in content, dose, intensity and duration) intervention, plus usual care or usual care alone. MAIN MEASURES: Disease-specific resource-use data and EQ-5D-5L (health-related quality of life) collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Resource-use items were valued using unit costs in UK£ 2021/22. EQ-5D-5L was used to estimate Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). If ESSVR was found effective, an incremental cost-utility analysis was planned, otherwise a cost-consequence analysis.
resultsThe clinical study found no evidence of a between-group difference in the proportion of participants returning to work at 12 months. This, and the level of missing data, means a cost-consequence analysis is reported. Using imputed data, ESSVR plus usual care is estimated to be more expensive with slightly higher QALYs compared with usual care.
conclusionsEarly Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation is unlikely to be considered cost-effective over 12 months, which fits with the clinical finding of no between-group difference in return-to-work rates post-stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN12464275 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12464275.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.