Björn Jakobsson1, Alf Bergroth, Kristina Schüldt, Jan Ekholm. 1. Centre for Studies on National Social Insurance, Department of Nursing and Health Sciences, Mid-Sweden University, Ostersund, Sweden. bjorn.jakobsson@mh.se
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to investigate differences in the effects on employment between clients whose rehabilitation was coordinated in systematic multiprofessional rehabilitation group meetings and clients whose rehabilitation was coordinated in the "conventional" way. METHOD: The study was based on a sample of 51 individuals who received systematic group meeting coordination. All individuals in the study group were unemployed before the rehabilitation intervention. Two different comparison groups were chosen: one at a local level and another at a national level. The groups were matched on an individual level based on records obtained from The National Labour Market Board (AMS) and The National Social Insurance Board (RFV). The data were analysed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures for binary responses. RESULTS: 68.6% in the study group and 49% in both the local comparison group and national group had some form of employment 24 months after rehabilitation. The ANOVA analyses (in terms of odds ratio) found that when all measurement points (6, 12 and 24 months after the rehabilitation) were included in the calculations that there was twice as high a chance of becoming employed after having received rehabilitation services through the multiprofessional group than for both comparison groups. The majority of employment in all the groups was associated with some form of subsidy or sheltered employment.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to investigate differences in the effects on employment between clients whose rehabilitation was coordinated in systematic multiprofessional rehabilitation group meetings and clients whose rehabilitation was coordinated in the "conventional" way. METHOD: The study was based on a sample of 51 individuals who received systematic group meeting coordination. All individuals in the study group were unemployed before the rehabilitation intervention. Two different comparison groups were chosen: one at a local level and another at a national level. The groups were matched on an individual level based on records obtained from The National Labour Market Board (AMS) and The National Social Insurance Board (RFV). The data were analysed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures for binary responses. RESULTS: 68.6% in the study group and 49% in both the local comparison group and national group had some form of employment 24 months after rehabilitation. The ANOVA analyses (in terms of odds ratio) found that when all measurement points (6, 12 and 24 months after the rehabilitation) were included in the calculations that there was twice as high a chance of becoming employed after having received rehabilitation services through the multiprofessional group than for both comparison groups. The majority of employment in all the groups was associated with some form of subsidy or sheltered employment.
Authors: Åsa Andersén; Christian Ståhl; Ingrid Anderzén; Per Kristiansson; Kjerstin Larsson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.295