Free
Research Article  |   October 1994
Reinjury Prevention Follow-Through for Clients With Cumulative Trauma Disorders
Author Affiliations
  • Heidi Jane Furth, MOTS, is Staff Therapist, Good Samaritan Center for Continuing Rehabilitation, 1420 Meridian Street South, Suite B, Puyallup, Washington 98371-6905
  • Margo B. Holm, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Professor of Occupational Therapy, School of Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington, and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Anne James, MS, OTR/L, is Clinical Associate Professor, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington
Article Information
Hand and Upper Extremity / Work and Industry / Special Issue on Functional Outcomes
Research Article   |   October 1994
Reinjury Prevention Follow-Through for Clients With Cumulative Trauma Disorders
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, October 1994, Vol. 48, 890-898. doi:10.5014/ajot.48.10.890
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, October 1994, Vol. 48, 890-898. doi:10.5014/ajot.48.10.890
Abstract

Objectives. Fifteen subjects with upper extremity, work-related cumulative trauma disorders were involved in a quality improvement study to determine their self-reported degree of follow-through with reinjury prevention regimens. The effect of cuing was also studied.

Method. During occupational therapy, subjects were involved in an educational session that focused on recommendations in ergonomic equipment, therapeutic maintenance techniques, body mechanics, and work simplification techniques. Follow-through with reinjury prevention education was evaluated and rated via telephone interviews approximately 2 weeks (T1 ) and 4 weeks (T2 ) after the educational session. Subjects did not know the questions they would be asked at T1, but were cued that their progress would be checked again at T2. Dependent t tests were conducted to compare the mean number of recommendations for which complete follow-through was expected with the mean number of recommendations at T1 and T2 that were implemented completely.

Results. A significantly lower degree was found of absolute completion of recommendations at T1 and T2 than had been anticipated (p < .002). No significant difference between T1 and T2 was found, indicating that cuing at T1 had little effect on subjects’ actual follow-through rate.

Conclusion. The implications of these findings for occupational therapists support the need for further reaserch in reinjury prevention and employer education.