Mary Stergiou-Kita1, Deirdre R Dawson, Susan G Rappolt. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Science, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1V7, Canada. mary.kita@utoronto.ca
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In order to develop the evidence base for a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury (TBI), we undertook a review to identify the key processes evaluators should follow and the key factors they should consider when completing a vocational evaluation. METHODS: Processes outlined in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review guided our processes and included: development of review questions, search strategies and selection criteria; quality appraisal; extraction, analysis and data synthesis; drawing conclusions. Four data bases (i.e. Medline; PsychInfo; Embase; The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews) were searched for descriptive articles, quantitative and qualitative studies, and nine websites were searched for CPGs (e.g. Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network; US National Guideline Clearinghouse; New Zealand Guideline Group). Two reviewers independently appraised methodological quality. Data were extracted into evidence tables which included: study purpose; location; participants; design/method; themes; findings; relevant processes and factors. Directed content analysis was utilized to analyze and synthesize the descriptive process evidence. A constant comparative method was employed to compare study findings in relation to factors associated with successful employment. RESULTS: Results from process and factors syntheses are integrated into the Evidence-based Framework for Vocational Evaluation Following TBI. This framework identifies seven key processes in a vocational evaluation, including: (1) identification of the evaluation purpose and rationale; (2) intake process; (3) assessment of the person; (4) assessment of the environment; (5) assessment of the occupation/job requirements; (6) analysis and synthesis of assessment results; (7) development of evaluation recommendations. Relevant factors are integrated into each key process. CONCLUSIONS: This framework outlines the key information evaluators should gather, the domains of the person, environment and occupation they should assess, and elements of rigour they should consider when completing a vocational evaluation and making recommendations for work re-entry following a TBI.
INTRODUCTION: In order to develop the evidence base for a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury (TBI), we undertook a review to identify the key processes evaluators should follow and the key factors they should consider when completing a vocational evaluation. METHODS: Processes outlined in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review guided our processes and included: development of review questions, search strategies and selection criteria; quality appraisal; extraction, analysis and data synthesis; drawing conclusions. Four data bases (i.e. Medline; PsychInfo; Embase; The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews) were searched for descriptive articles, quantitative and qualitative studies, and nine websites were searched for CPGs (e.g. Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network; US National Guideline Clearinghouse; New Zealand Guideline Group). Two reviewers independently appraised methodological quality. Data were extracted into evidence tables which included: study purpose; location; participants; design/method; themes; findings; relevant processes and factors. Directed content analysis was utilized to analyze and synthesize the descriptive process evidence. A constant comparative method was employed to compare study findings in relation to factors associated with successful employment. RESULTS: Results from process and factors syntheses are integrated into the Evidence-based Framework for Vocational Evaluation Following TBI. This framework identifies seven key processes in a vocational evaluation, including: (1) identification of the evaluation purpose and rationale; (2) intake process; (3) assessment of the person; (4) assessment of the environment; (5) assessment of the occupation/job requirements; (6) analysis and synthesis of assessment results; (7) development of evaluation recommendations. Relevant factors are integrated into each key process. CONCLUSIONS: This framework outlines the key information evaluators should gather, the domains of the person, environment and occupation they should assess, and elements of rigour they should consider when completing a vocational evaluation and making recommendations for work re-entry following a TBI.
Authors: Kristi L Kirschner; Steve R Geiringer; Vilia Tarvydas; Rebecca Brashler; Pamela Capraro; Walter S Davis; Thomas Yates Journal: PM R Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: John D Corrigan; Lee A Lineberry; Eugene Komaroff; Jean A Langlois; Anbesaw W Selassie; Kenneth D Wood Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Christina Dillahunt-Aspillaga; Dezon Finch; Jill Massengale; Tracy Kretzmer; Stephen L Luther; James A McCart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christina Dillahunt-Aspillaga; Tammy Jorgensen Smith; Ardis Hanson; Sarah Ehlke; Mary Stergiou-Kita; Charlotte G Dixon; Davina Quichocho Journal: Behav Neurol Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 3.342