Mary Stergiou-Kita1, Deirdre Dawson, Susan Rappolt. 1. Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave., Toronto, ON M5G 1V7, Canada. mary.kita@utoronto.ca
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This paper introduces an inter-professional clinical practice guideline for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury. This guideline aims to explicate the processes and factors relevant to vocational evaluation to assist evaluators (i.e. health care teams, individuals and employers) in collaboratively determining if clients are able to work and to make recommendations for work entry, re-entry or vocational planning. METHODS: Methods in the Canadian Medical Association's (CMA) Handbook on Clinical Practice Guideline and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument were utilized to ensure rigour. Steps in the CMA handbook were followed and included: (1) identifying the guideline's objective and questions; (2) systematic literature review; (3) study selection and quality appraisal; (4) development of clear recommendations by key stakeholders; (5) guideline pilot testing and endorsement. RESULTS: The resulting guideline includes 17 key recommendations within the seven domains: (1) evaluation purpose and rationale; (2) initial intake process; (3) assessment of the personal domain; (4) assessment of the environment; (5) assessment of occupational/job requirements; (6) analysis and synthesis; (7) evaluation recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline may be useful to individually practicing clinicians, health care teams, employers and individuals with TBI. Future research will formally examine the success of the guideline's implementation.
INTRODUCTION: This paper introduces an inter-professional clinical practice guideline for vocational evaluation following traumatic brain injury. This guideline aims to explicate the processes and factors relevant to vocational evaluation to assist evaluators (i.e. health care teams, individuals and employers) in collaboratively determining if clients are able to work and to make recommendations for work entry, re-entry or vocational planning. METHODS: Methods in the Canadian Medical Association's (CMA) Handbook on Clinical Practice Guideline and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument were utilized to ensure rigour. Steps in the CMA handbook were followed and included: (1) identifying the guideline's objective and questions; (2) systematic literature review; (3) study selection and quality appraisal; (4) development of clear recommendations by key stakeholders; (5) guideline pilot testing and endorsement. RESULTS: The resulting guideline includes 17 key recommendations within the seven domains: (1) evaluation purpose and rationale; (2) initial intake process; (3) assessment of the personal domain; (4) assessment of the environment; (5) assessment of occupational/job requirements; (6) analysis and synthesis; (7) evaluation recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline may be useful to individually practicing clinicians, health care teams, employers and individuals with TBI. Future research will formally examine the success of the guideline's implementation.
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: Frederik Lehman Dornonville de la Cour; Morten Arendt Rasmussen; Eva Meldal Foged; Line Svenning Jensen; Trine Schow Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Lynn H Gerber; Rati Deshpande; Ali Moosvi; Ross Zafonte; Tamara Bushnik; Steven Garfinkel; Cindy Cai Journal: NeuroRehabilitation Date: 2021 Impact factor: 2.138
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