IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9548-d879643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Does It Take to Get Somebody Back to Work after Severe Acquired Brain Injury? Service Actions within the Vocational Intervention Program (VIP 2.0)

Author

Listed:
  • Philippa McRae

    (Brain Injury Rehabilitation Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, NSW 2170, Australia
    Brain Injury Rehabilitation Directorate, Agency for Clinical Innovation, NSW Health, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia)

  • Conrad Kobel

    (Australian Health Services Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2500, Australia)

  • Sue Lukersmith

    (Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia)

  • Grahame Simpson

    (Brain Injury Rehabilitation Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, NSW 2170, Australia
    Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
    John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, The Kolling Institute, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia)

Abstract

Little is known about service actions delivered in the complex intervention of vocational rehabilitation (VR) for people with severe acquired brain injury (ABI). Scale-up of the Vocational Intervention Program (VIP) across the 12 Community teams of the NSW Brain Injury Rehabilitation Program provided an opportunity to analyse the intensity and profile of actions delivered in providing VR programs. Seventy-two participants with severe TBI were supported in returning to either pre-injury employment (FastTrack, FT, n = 27) or new employment (NewTrack, NT, n = 50), delivered by two types of VR providers (Disability Employment Service DES; private providers). VR providers documented their service actions in hours and minutes, using the Case Management Taxonomy, adapted to VR. The NT pathway required significantly higher levels of intervention in comparison to FT (25 h, five minutes vs. 35 h, 30 min, p = 0.048, W = 446). Case coordination was the most frequent service action overall (41.7% of total time for FT, 42.3% for NT). DES providers recorded significantly greater amounts of time undertaking engagement, assessment and planning, and emotional/motivational support actions compared to private providers. Overall duration of the programs were a median of 46 weeks (NT) and 36 weeks (FT), respectively. This study helps illuminate the profile of VR interventions for people with severe TBI.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippa McRae & Conrad Kobel & Sue Lukersmith & Grahame Simpson, 2022. "What Does It Take to Get Somebody Back to Work after Severe Acquired Brain Injury? Service Actions within the Vocational Intervention Program (VIP 2.0)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9548-:d:879643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9548/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9548/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexandra Devine & Marissa Shields & Stefanie Dimov & Helen Dickinson & Cathy Vaughan & Rebecca Bentley & Anthony D. LaMontagne & Anne Kavanagh, 2021. "Australia’s Disability Employment Services Program: Participant Perspectives on Factors Influencing Access to Work," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-20, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sue Lukersmith & Luis Salvador-Carulla & Younjin Chung & Wei Du & Anoush Sarkissian & Michael Millington, 2023. "A Realist Evaluation of Case Management Models for People with Complex Health Conditions Using Novel Methods and Tools—What Works, for Whom, and under What Circumstances?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-20, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9548-:d:879643. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.