Return to work after spinal cord injury: a Singaporean pilot community-based rehabilitation program

Abstract

Study design

Retrospective analysis of data collected as part of a pilot program.

Objectives

The primary objective of our study was to document the return-to-work rate of individuals with SCI who participated in a community-based interdisciplinary vocational rehabilitation program. The secondary objectives were to assess changes in their levels of community integration and functional independence.

Setting

A community-based rehabilitation center in Singapore.

Methods

Participants were individuals with SCI between 21 and 55 years. They identified return to work as a rehabilitation goal, and were certified fit to undergo rehabilitation by their physicians. Primary outcome was the return-to-work rate at discharge from the program. Secondary outcomes were community integration and functional independence, measured by the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III (SCIM-III), respectively. We summarized participants’ clinical and socio-demographic characteristics descriptively, and used inferential statistics to compare pre- and postprogram scores for secondary outcome measures.

Results

Thirty-nine participants were included for this study. Thirty-two completed the program, of which 84% (n = 27) reported returning to work. Participants who completed the program had mean change in total CIQ and SCIM-III scores of 7 (95% CI, 5–8) and 11 (95% CI, 7–15), respectively. There were differences (p < 0.05) between pre- and postprogram scores for both secondary outcome measures.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that our vocational rehabilitation program facilitated participants with SCI in Singapore to return to work and was beneficial to enhance their levels of community integration and functional independence. Future interventional studies are recommended to estimate the efficacy of such programs.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

The access to the dataset collected and used for the current study may be granted upon request by SPD.

References

  1. 1.

    World Health Organization, International Spinal Cord Society. International perspectives on spinal cord injury. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2013.

  2. 2.

    Chamberlain JD, Meier S, Mader L, von Groote PM, Brinkhof MW. Mortality and longevity after a spinal cord injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroepidemiology. 2015;44:182–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ahuja CS, Wilson JR, Nori S, et al. Traumatic spinal cord injury. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Migliorini C, Tonge B, Taleporos G. Spinal cord injury and mental health. Aust NZ J Psychiatry. 2008;42:309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Craig A, Nicholson Perry K, Guest R, Tran Y, Middleton J. Adjustment following chronic spinal cord injury: determining factors that contribute to social participation. Br J Health Psychol. 2015;20:807–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Reed KS, Meade MA, Krause JS. Impact of health behaviors and health management on employment after SCI: psychological health and health management. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabilit. 2016;22:111–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Boschen KA, Tonack M, Gargaro J. Long-term adjustment and community reintegration following spinal cord injury. Int J Rehabilit Res. 2003;26:157–64.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Barclay L, Lalor A, Migliorini C, et al. A comparative examination of models of service delivery intended to support community integration in the immediate period following inpatient rehabilitation for spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2019:1–9.

  9. 9.

    Hilton G, Unsworth CA, Stuckey R, Murphy GC. The experience of seeking, gaining and maintaining employment after traumatic spinal cord injury and the vocational pathways involved. Work. 2018;59:67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ville I, Ravaud J. Work values: a comparison of non-disabled persons with persons with paraplegia. Disabil Rehabilit. 1998;20:127–37.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Konrad AM, Moore ME, Doherty AJ, Ng ESW, Breward K. Vocational status and perceived well‐being of workers with disabilities. Equal Divers Incl. 2012;31:100–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ra Y, Kim WH. Impact of employment and age on quality of life of individuals with disabilities: a multilevel analysis. Rehabilit Couns Bull. 2016;59:112–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Roels EH, Aertgeerts B, Ramaekers D, Peers K. Hospital- and community-based interventions enhancing (re)employment for people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2016;54:2–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Tomassen PC, Post MW, van Asbeck FW. Return to work after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2000;38:51–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Weitzner E, Surca S, Wiese S, Dion A, Roussos Z, Renwick R, et al. Getting on with life: positive experiences of living with a spinal cord injury. Qual Health Res. 2011;21:1455–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ottomanelli L, Barnett S, Goetz L, Toscano R. Vocational rehabilitation in spinal cord injury: what vocational service activities are associated with employment program outcome? Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabilit. 2015;21:31–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cox RJ, Amsters DI, Pershouse KJ. The need for a multidisciplinary outreach service for people with spinal cord injury living in the community. Clin Rehabilit. 2001;15:600–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    SPD. Transition to employment. 2019. https://www.spd.org.sg/transition-to-employment/.

  19. 19.

    Kratz AL, Chadd E, Jensen MP, Kehn M, Kroll T. An examination of the psychometric properties of the community integration questionnaire (CIQ) in spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38:446–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sander AM, Fuchs KL, High WM Jr, Hall KM, Kreutzer JS, Rosenthal M. The community integration questionnaire revisited: an assessment of factor structure and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabilit. 1999;80:1303–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Willer B, Rosenthal M, Kreutzer JS, Gordon WA, Rempel R. Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabilit. 1993;8:75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Willer B, Ottenbacher KJ, Coad ML. The community integration questionnaire. a comparative examination. Am J Phys Med Rehabilit. 1994;73:103–11.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gontkovsky ST, Russum P, Stokic DS. Comparison of the CIQ and CHART Short Form in assessing community integration in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury: a pilot study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2009;24:185–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Itzkovich M, Gelernter I, Biering-Sorensen F, Weeks C, Laramee MT, Craven BC, et al. The spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) version III: reliability and validity in a multi-center international study. Disabil Rehabilit. 2007;29:1926–33.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Bluvshtein V, Front L, Itzkovich M, Aidinoff E, Gelernter I, Hart J, et al. SCIM III is reliable and valid in a separate analysis for traumatic spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:292.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Anderson KD, Acuff ME, Arp BG, Backus D, Chun S, Fisher K, et al. United States (US) multi-center study to assess the validity and reliability of the spinal cord independence measure (SCIM III). Spinal Cord. 2011;49:880.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version Q3 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Trenaman L, Miller WC, Querée M, Escorpizo R. Modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with employment outcomes following spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38:422–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bloom J, Dorsett P, McLennan V. Investigating employment following spinal cord injury: outcomes, methods, and population demographics. Disabil Rehabilit. 2019;41:2359–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Tan ES, Balachandran N. The causes, pattern and effects of spinal injury in Singapore. Clin Rehabilit. 1987;1:101–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Teo SHJ, Sew S, Backman C, Forwell S, Lee WK, Chan PL, et al. Health of people with spinal cord injury in Singapore: implications for rehabilitation planning and implementation. Disabil Rehabilit. 2011;33:1460–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Yen HL, Chua K, Chan W. Spinal injury rehabilitation in Singapore. Int J Rehabilit Res. 1998;21:375–88.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Callaway L, Enticott J, Farnworth L, McDonald R, Migliorini C, Willer B. Community integration outcomes of people with spinal cord injury and multiple matched controls: a pilot study. Aust Occup Ther J. 2017;64:226–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lidal IB, Huynh TK, Biering-Sørensen F. Return to work following spinal cord injury: a review. Disabil Rehabilit. 2007;29:1341–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Scivoletto G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L, Molinari M. The spinal cord independence measure: how much change is clinically significant for spinal cord injury subjects. Disabil Rehabilit. 2013;35:1808–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:285–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Richard-Denis A, Chatta R, Thompson C, Mac-Thiong J-M. Patterns and predictors of functional recovery from the subacute to the chronic phase following a traumatic spinal cord injury: a prospective study. Spinal Cord. 2020;58:43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, Overholser JD, Richardson GN. Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabilit. 1992;73:519–26.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Crewe NM, Athelstan GT. Functional Assessment Inventory Manual. Menomonie, WI: Materials Development Center, Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute, University of Wisconsin-Stout; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants of the TTE program, who contributed the data for this study. We would also like to express our gratitude to the SPD staff who supported the delivery of the program.

Funding

This study was funded by the Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 1.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

KK and NM were responsible for writing the paper and data analysis. PK and JK organized the program, collected data, managed the database, and contributed to the paper development. JY and YN contributed to the paper development. MA was the principal investigator and was responsible for the research design and writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miho Asano.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The affiliated Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kee, K.M., Mohamad, N.Z., Koh, P.P.W. et al. Return to work after spinal cord injury: a Singaporean pilot community-based rehabilitation program. Spinal Cord (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-020-0459-x

Download citation