ArticleBMJ open2026
Co-developing a vocational rehabilitation intervention for individuals with chronic low back pain across a regional spine centre and three municipalities in Denmark: a three-stage intervention development study guided by the Medical Research Council framework.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo co-develop the Stay-At-Work (SAW) intervention, a person-centred, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral vocational rehabilitation (VR) programme for individuals on, or at risk of, sick leave due to chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to advance methodological understanding of how evidence, qualitative insights, stakeholder input and programme theory can be systematically integrated and operationalised into concrete intervention components.
designA three-stage intervention development study, guided by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, involving evidence review and stakeholder consultation (previously reported); multistakeholder co-design; and prototyping in clinical settings.
settingThe intervention was developed within a Danish public healthcare and welfare context, involving a secondary care spinal service, municipal employment services (n=3), municipal rehabilitation services (n=3) and general practice.
participantsStage 1: 17 individuals on long-term sick leave due to CLBP participated in interviews and focus groups. Stages 2 and 3: The co-design group included individuals living with CLBP (n=2); clinicians from a secondary care spine service (n=2) and municipal rehabilitation services (n=6); general practitioners (n=2); municipal employment service professionals (n=3) and local managers (n=3); and employer and employee representatives (n=2). Participants were purposively recruited based on their roles and experience in VR and return-to-work processes and contributed across different stages of intervention development.
resultsThe SAW intervention consists of eight structured activities, developed through multistakeholder co-design and underpinned by a programme theory with four core mechanisms: (1) strengthened interprofessional and cross-sectoral understanding and collaboration; (2) stronger alignment around functional capacity and work ability; (3) addressing psychological vulnerability through systematic screening and support; and (4) enhanced coordination of care and rehabilitation efforts across services.Stakeholder input from the co-design group informed the intervention's content and procedures, thereby improving alignment with local contexts and strengthening cross-sector collaboration. Some proposals were excluded due to inconsistency with clinical guidelines.
conclusionThis study demonstrates how a structured, theory-informed co-development process can be used to integrate evidence, stakeholder input and programme theory into a coherent, cross-sectoral VR intervention. The approach enhanced transparency, supported alignment with real-world practice, and provides methodological insight to strengthen the reproducibility and transferability of complex interventions.
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.