PURPOSE: The present aim was to investigate the communicative pattern in two rehabilitation groups. The rehabilitation group consisted of the client, a supervisor, an employer representative, an occupational health physician, a rehabilitation counsellor from the national social insurance office and a support person. METHOD: Participatory observation of 22 rehabilitation meetings. The communication was tape-recorded and transcribed word for word. The transcripts were coded and analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The client made the most utterances in the groups, but most often in the form of answers to questions from the other actors. Following the client, the physician made the next most frequent utterances, most often as questions. The subjects most discussed concerned the client's situation regarding work, health and material support. None of the "professionals" dominated the meetings, although one picture that emerged was that the physician and employer representative played more prominent roles as takers of initiative and as coordinators while the client was more passive than the other actors. The discussions were calm and much latitude was allowed for the participants to put forward their own requirements, thoughts and feelings. The rehabilitation group may be viewed as a meeting place for "experts" and clients. The further management of the rehabilitation was by the actor the client most immediately needed. In this, rehabilitation in the rehabilitation group differs from the "case management" common in the rehabilitation field.
PURPOSE: The present aim was to investigate the communicative pattern in two rehabilitation groups. The rehabilitation group consisted of the client, a supervisor, an employer representative, an occupational health physician, a rehabilitation counsellor from the national social insurance office and a support person. METHOD: Participatory observation of 22 rehabilitation meetings. The communication was tape-recorded and transcribed word for word. The transcripts were coded and analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The client made the most utterances in the groups, but most often in the form of answers to questions from the other actors. Following the client, the physician made the next most frequent utterances, most often as questions. The subjects most discussed concerned the client's situation regarding work, health and material support. None of the "professionals" dominated the meetings, although one picture that emerged was that the physician and employer representative played more prominent roles as takers of initiative and as coordinators while the client was more passive than the other actors. The discussions were calm and much latitude was allowed for the participants to put forward their own requirements, thoughts and feelings. The rehabilitation group may be viewed as a meeting place for "experts" and clients. The further management of the rehabilitation was by the actor the client most immediately needed. In this, rehabilitation in the rehabilitation group differs from the "case management" common in the rehabilitation field.
Authors: Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht; Jan M Stratil; Rainer Kaluscha; Gert Krischak; Monika A Rieger Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 2.692