Johanna Gustafsson1,2,3*†
Ingrid Witte1,3,4,†
- 1Department of Activity and Health, School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
- 2Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
- 3Disability Research, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
- 4Department of Social Work, School of Behavioural, Social and Legal Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify what factors influence user satisfaction with vocational rehabilitation services among service users in a Swedish context.
Methods: In a randomized control trial, ordinal logistic regression was applied to a dataset of 631 completed questionnaires about the support provided in three different vocational rehabilitation programmes in Sweden—Supported Employment, Case Management and Regular Vocational Rehabilitation.
Results: The factors Person-centeredness, Trust in Support Persons, and Experience that the activities help with getting a job were significant factors of satisfaction among service users. The ordinal logistic regression model explained between 34.3% and 49.9% of the variance in the material, depending on the pseudo R2-measure used.
Conclusions: Service users who experience vocational support as person-centered, experienced trust in their support persons and that vocational rehabilitation activities help with getting a job are more satisfied with the vocational rehabilitation services than are other service users, independent of the vocational rehabilitation models used. Therefore, a person-centered approach is relevant to include in models’ development and service design of vocational rehabilitation.
1 Introduction
The labor market exclusion of people with disabilities is of great concern for both society and the persons themselves, and to improve labour market inclusion, government authorities and nongovernmental organizations provide a wide range of vocational rehabilitation services to people with disabilities. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) services are generally referred to as the process of supporting persons with illness or disability to obtain access to, maintain, or return to employment or other purposeful occupations (1). Research on VR programmes has focused predominantly on other quantitative outcomes, such as the percentage of successfully employed service users, to evaluate programme performance (2). However, in order to develop high quality VR services, it is necessary to understand the factors that influence service users’ experiences and satisfaction, where the former is based on what should happen during the VR process and whether it did, and the latter is based on whether expectations were met. Evidence from other settings, such as health care, suggests that high satisfaction is associated with increased treatment adherence and an increased likelihood of treatment completion (3, 4). In addition, without service users’ perspective, service evaluations may be biased towards the provider's perspective. Therefore, evaluating service user experience and satisfaction is a key factor in developing VR services in a desirable and efficient manner. Service user experience with VR has been explored in a number of studies, but user satisfaction as it relates to service quality has primarily been explored in the context of health services, such as mental health services and medical rehabilitation (3, 4) and has only received some attention in the area of VR (2).
1.1 The Swedish context
In Sweden, the Social Insurance Agency (SIA) has the responsibility to provide VR to young people (19–29 years) with disabilities who are eligible to receive activity compensation benefits due to reduced work ability, illness or impairment (5). The SIA guidelines advocate a person-centered VR approach where the service user's participation and active involvement in his or her rehabilitation is seen as a central prerequisite (6). Despite being a central prerequisite, it is not described how such an approach should be performed or secured in the VR process. Some elements that can be defined as person-centered are measured in SIA's annual user satisfaction survey. In the 2024 survey, a person-centered treatment by caseworkers (e.g., being treated with respect, understanding, engagement) received the highest satisfaction scores (65 out of 100) among the elements measured, but other elements that can be related to person-centeredness, such as caseworkers being easy to reach and providing information about the case, and the process being equitable and understandable received significantly lower scores (19 respectively 17 out of 100) (7). Thus, service users’ satisfaction with the agency's VR services remains in need of improvement if the services are to adhere to the advocated person-centered approach.
1.2 Vocational rehabilitation and service user satisfaction
A person-centered approach has increasingly become the approach favored in the provision of (vocational) rehabilitation (8). Briefly described, the person-centered approach aims to foster a partnership and the co-creation of care/rehabilitation between patients/clients and professionals regarding care or rehabilitation activities based on patients’/clients’ lived experiences by listening to the person's narratives and acknowledging patients’/clients’ resources and abilities to be an expert in their own life (9, 10). Research has shown that person-centered rehabilitation is associated with rehabilitation satisfaction (11, 12) and that satisfaction with services is, in turn, associated with commitment and completed treatment (3, 4).
The relationship between professionals and patients has been shown to be important for patient satisfaction (13) and research has highlighted the importance of this relationship, also named working alliance, as a means of implementing person-centered care and rehabilitation (14–16). Bordin [(17): 253] suggested that a working alliance includes “three main features: an agreement on goals, an assignment of task or a series of tasks, and the development of bonds”. The bond of attachment, developed in a relationship between those involved, is as important as mutual agreement upon goals and responsibilities in the tasks assigned. Thus, the quality of the working alliance is dependent both on the strength of the agreement about goals and tasks and on the strength of the attachment bond. He proposed that the working alliance is a necessary aspect of the change process and states that the working alliance “is one of the keys, if not the key, to the change process” [(17), p.252]. While a vast amount of research has been conducted on therapeutic relationships in psychotherapy, there is much less research on the impact of relationships in VR (18) even though studies pinpoint working alliances as important factors in VR interventions for people with mental illness [c.f. (18–20)] regardless of differences in types of professional roles or VR contexts (21). The relationship between the professional and the service user has been linked to a beneficial impact on employment outcomes in psychiatric rehabilitation programs (22, 23). Furthermore, service users who reach employment in VR (performed according to supported employment methods) are more likely to report a stronger working alliance than unemployed individuals are (24). However, the results are inconclusive, as others have found no overall association between working alliances and employment outcomes (25).
The performance of VR services is hence important for user satisfaction, and a review by Al-Rashaida et al. (2) revealed that counsellor characteristics, such as counsellor skills in listening, feeling empathy and giving support and encouragement, influenced user satisfaction with VR services. In addition, organizational factors such as well-organized services, qualified staff and involving service users in decision-making, as well as what actual vocational services were provided and their employment outcomes, were related to service user satisfaction. Service users who had positive employment outcomes also seemed to be more satisfied, but this relation was modified by job satisfaction.
A few qualitative studies have been performed in Sweden investigating service users’ satisfaction with VR. In a Swedish VR project, Andersén et al. (26) identified four themes related to users’ satisfaction: opportunities for receiving various dimensions of support, good overall treatment by professionals, satisfaction with the working methods of the project, and opportunities for personal development. These themes largely overlap with the themes identified by Al-Rashaida et al. (2). Another Swedish interview study revealed professionals’ positive attitudes to be one of three critical factors, alongside experiencing hope and power and employing a holistic perspective and integrating (person-centered) mental health and vocational services in the return-to-work processes of people with affective disorders (27). The professionals’ positive attitudes involved genuine interest and engagement, an understanding of the individual's needs and allowing the individual's needs to lead the intervention. Similar person-centered support approaches are also described by participants in supported employment interventions, where trustful relationships and diversified and individual support from the employment specialist were highlighted as important to the participants’ satisfaction with services (28).
Hence, a growing body of literature suggests that employing a person-centered approach influences VR satisfaction, where especially the quality of the relationship between professionals and service users seems to influence satisfaction with services. However, as the concept of user satisfaction is still to be defined in relation to the satisfaction of people with disabilities with VR programs (2), a more detailed understanding of what factors are associated with user satisfaction is thus important. Previous studies have mostly been qualitative, and to the best of our knowledge, no quantitative studies have explored factors related to satisfaction with VR from the service user perspective in different VR models. Such a horizontal perspective can advance the research field on user satisfaction by examining factors important to user satisfaction across different VR programmes. As it is reasonable to assume that user satisfaction enhances the efficiency of VR programs, knowledge about what contributes to user satisfaction can be seen as necessary to further develop, or sustain, the effective provision of VR services. In a Swedish context, Fogelgren et al. (29) studied the same population as used in this study and demonstrated rather modest differences (10 percentage differences at 18 months of follow-up) in employment success rates between the different VR programmes, and thus a deeper understanding of what features may influence programme effectiveness is needed to further develop these VR programmes.
1.3 Study purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore the factors associated with user satisfaction among young persons with disabilities across different VR programmes in a Swedish context. To explore this purpose, the following questions were asked: (1) What are the levels of user satisfaction for the three different vocational rehabilitation interventions? (2) What individual factors (age, sex, employment/internship/studies), contextual factors (type of intervention and help with completing the questionnaire), and relationship factors (trust in support persons and person-centeredness) are associated with satisfaction with services?
2 Methods
2.1 Settings
The material for this study was taken from a randomized controlled trial of three different VR interventions in Sweden, Supported Employment, Case Management or Regular Vocational Rehabilitation, carried out in regular activities in the support system in Sweden from November 2014 through December 2016 [Fogelgren et al. (29), provide more detailed information on the trial]. Ethical approval was granted by the regional Ethics Committee (Stockholm; dnr. 2014/1280-31/5).
In the trial, Supported Employment (SE) adopted a train-then-place model of VR (30). As outlined by Wehman (31), SE builds on the premise that persons with disabilities receive individual support by locating an appropriate job in an integrated setting, intensive job-site training, and permanent ongoing support. This support is provided by a qualified staff member (later called an employment specialist). In this study, SE services were provided by the Swedish Public Employment Services program “Special introduction and follow-up support”.
Case Management (CM) is an umbrella term for several different models of support for persons with severe mental illness with some common features. The original CM model was built on the principles that a single person, a case manager, is responsible for assessing needs, developing a care plan, arranging suitable care, and keeping contact with the person (32). In this study, the role of the case manager was specified to meet the conditions of the VR setting and the needs of the individual to improve opportunities in the labor market. Hence, the case manager was responsible for assessing VR needs, developing a VR plan, arranging suitable support, and keeping contact with the study participant.
Regular vocational rehabilitation (RVR) in the Swedish welfare system is a joint intervention by the SIA and the PES where these two authorities, together with the individual, chart the individuals’ needs and then plan VR activities accordingly. The activities can be either work preparation, such as counseling and wellness activities, or more work oriented, such as internships at workplaces (6). In this study, the RVR intervention was delivered as a collaboration between the SIA and the PES and was planned according to individual VR needs.
As described by Fogelgren et al. (29), the three interventions in the trial had some common features. All interventions were given in the context of VR, and the overall purpose was therefore that the services given should aim at entering, or returning to, employment or other purposeful occupations (such as studies). The interventions also had some distinct features. The RVR included broad but “nonintense” support, where the participants could receive support through the coordination of services as well as work preparation and training. However, RVR did not provide intensive workplace support, such as that provided in SE, or intense “whole life” support, such as that provided in CM. Therefore, the RVR could include a greater number of participants per caseworker than the SE and CM interventions. Like SE, the CM intervention provided intense support but had a broader support perspective, with intense “whole life” support (e.g., co-ordination of support for several life areas) rather than focusing on intense work support. The three models are distinguished from each other in several ways, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of theVR interventions .
2.2 Participants
In the trial, 1,063 participants with activity compensation (eligible for individuals with reduced work ability due to illness or impairment), 19–29 years of age, were randomized into one of the three different VR interventions (i.e., Supported Employment, Case Management or Regular Vocational Rehabilitation). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. A total of 59% (631/1,063) of the participants in the randomized controlled trial answered the questionnaire. Of the persons receiving CM the response rate was 73%, but of the persons receiving SE and RVR the response rate was approximately 50%. According to a previous report from the trial describing the participants (33), the participants who did not answer the questionnaire were more likely to have at least a secondary education or had daily activities (i.e., sheltered workshops) according to the Swedish Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Disabilities (34). Apart from this, the participants who responded to the questionnaire did not significantly differ from the total trial population.
2.3 Material
At the 6-month follow-up in the randomized controlled trial, the participants were encouraged to complete a questionnaire about how they perceived VR support. The questionnaire consisted of questions about the overall support (8 items, e.g., How do you feel about the support you received?) and questions about specific parts of the support. Of the latter, 16 items targeted person-centeredness, i.e., co-creation of VR activities [e.g., Have you and your support person(s) planned together what you will do in this process?], working alliance [e.g., Do you and your support person(s) agree on your goals?], and dialogue with the support person [e.g., Do your support person(s) listen to what you need help with?]. 9 items were related to support for work [e.g., Can your support person(s) help you keep a job?] and 8 items were related to support for study (e.g., Did the support you received from your support person(s) help you study? In addition, 4 items were related to the benefits of participation (e.g., Did you get a job or internship in a workplace?). Theoretically, the questionnaire builds on the frameworks of person-centered rehabilitation (9, 10), working alliance (17, 19, 24, 25) and work inclusion (30, 31). Some questions were reported on a nominal scale, others were reported on a three-level ordinal scale, and some questions were reported on a four-level ordinal scale. In addition to questions about the overall support and outcomes of the support, information about the type of intervention, gender, age and whether the participant had received help completing the questionnaire was collected.
2.4 Data analysis and measures
All the data analyses in this study were performed in SPSS version 28.
To describe the general characteristics of the participants in the dataset and overall satisfaction with VR, descriptive statistics with frequency counts and percentages were used for the ordinal and nominal variables, while means and standard deviations were calculated for the continuous variables. To analyze if there were differences in the level of satisfaction for the three different interventions, a Kruskal‒Wallis test was performed, and to further explore the significance of the differences shown by the Kruskal‒Wallis test, post hoc Mann‒Whitney U-tests were performed to compare the three intervention groups. (See Supplementary Material 1 for figures.)
To examine what factors were associated with satisfaction with VR services among service users, ordinal logistic regression was used as the most suitable option (35), and the proportional (or cumulative) odds model (36) was used in this study.
The dependent variable in this study was an item in the questionnaire measuring satisfaction with overall support for VR. The item measured satisfaction with overall support on a three-level ordinal scale with the alternatives “good”, “neither good nor bad” and “bad”. Reasons for choosing a three-level scale included clinical experiences of a three-level scale being easier to understand for the study population than a scale with more levels.
The independent variables in this study were the background variables Gender, Age, and Help (to complete in the questionnaire), as well as variables related to previous research on satisfaction in VR; Type of intervention, Having been employed/internship/studies during the VR, Experience that VR activities help with getting a job, Trust in support persons, and Person-centeredness. See Table 2. These variables were selected because previous research indicates that they are important in vocational rehabilitation and work inclusion of persons with disabilities (2, 19, 21, 24–27).
Table 2. Independent variables, used in the correlation analysis.
The independent variable “Person-centeredness” was created as an index consisting of six items, all of which are theoretically related to the concept of person-centeredness (i.e., goal agreement, task assignment, (support) bonds [(15): 253] and counselor skills (10, 24). The items were highly correlated in the analysis, where Cronbach's alpha for the whole index was 0,859, well exceeding the recommendation of 0,7 (37). The items in the index were reported on a four-point ordinal Likert scale and were treated as continuous variables to form an index. The individual items that form the index, the properties of the items, and the whole scale are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Index “person-centeredness”.
The multicollinearity of the independent variables was tested with the variance inflation factor (VIF). The 8 independent variables in this study had VIFs between 1,006 and 1,491 (see Supplementary Material 3 for figures), indicating no problematic issues with high multicollinearity within the independent variables.
3 Results
Two research questions guided this study. For the first question, i.e., what are the levels of user satisfaction for three different vocational rehabilitation interventions, nonparametric tests were performed to compare user satisfaction in the three intervention groups. Participants in the randomized controlled trial were generally satisfied with the VR provided during the trial, with 71% responding that the support received was good and only 4.3% of participants responding that the support received was poor, while the remainder (24.7%) found the support quite adequate See Table 4.
Table 4. Satisfaction with the support, participants characteristics, participants in the interventions, outcomes of participation, and participants’ experiences of the support.
However, the three intervention groups differed from each other, where persons receiving CM were significantly more satisfied with the support than persons receiving SE were, who in turn were more satisfied with the support than persons receiving RVR were. The differences between the rank totals of 331,10 (CM), 299,22 (SE) and 257,88 (RVR) were significant, H (2, n = 607) = 27,3, p = <,001 (See Table 5).
Table 5. Satisfaction with support, differences between the VR interventions.
For the second research question, i.e., what factors are associated with satisfaction with services, a correlation analysis was performed to determine whether individual, contextual and interactional factors were correlated with service user satisfaction. According to the full ordinal regression model, when examining which factors were associated with user satisfaction across the interventions (with all the independent variables chosen), the interventions per se lost their significance as a factor influencing satisfaction with vocational rehabilitation (see Table 6). Instead, the variables on the interactional level; “Experience that the activities help with getting a job” [95% CI (0,485, 1,121)], “Person-centeredness” [95% CI (1,374, 2,593)], and “Trust in support persons” [95% CI (−2,182, −0,801) for “Partly trust” as Trust was set as the reference point] were the significant variables influencing user satisfaction with vocational rehabilitation. The factors at the individual level as Gender [95% CI (−0,309, 0,766)] and Age [95% CI (−0,163, 0,044)] were not significant. Neither were the factors at the contextual level, i.e., Intervention [RVR 95% CI [−1,277, 0,258], CM 95% CI [−0,269, 1,076] and SE was set as the reference Point], Employment/internship/studies [95% CI (−0,906, 0,385)], and Help with the questionnaire (95% CI [−0,509, 0,712).
Table 6. Full ordinal logistic regression model.
According to the most conservative measure of the ones tested, the model explained 34,3% (McFadden pseudo R2), and according to the most liberal of the measures tested, the model explained 49,9% (Nagelkerke pseudo R2) of the variation. Moreover, the full model fulfils the assumption of proportional odds with the test of parallel lines with a significance of 0,136. However, due to missing data points, only 427 out of 631 patients could be included in the full ordinal logistic regression model.
4 Discussion
4.1 Main findings
The purpose of this study is to explore service user satisfaction across three different VR interventions, and to determine whether individual, contextual and interactional factors were correlated with satisfaction. The overall results suggest that VR participants who experience that they are given entry point opportunities for person-centered support in the VR rehabilitation process, who experience trust in their support persons and who experience that the activities in the VR process will help with getting a job are more satisfied with the services than other participants are. The significant difference in satisfaction between the three models of VR that was apparent without the ordinal logistic regression model disappeared when other important factors, such as the levels of person-centeredness, quality of working alliance, and goal-attainment, were taken into account. Thus, the specific model of VR was no longer important, but rather the different elements of the model.
The elements common to the three VR models are first and foremost individualized support focused on the participant's needs and the coordination of support to help participants navigate and access different services and supports. However, the goal of the latter may differ between the VR models, where CM and RVR coordination support is aimed at facilitating the participant's daily life, while the coordination goal of SE is more focused on supports and services that facilitate entry into the labor market. A third common element for the VR models in this study was an overarching goal of helping the participant enter the labor market. All of the VR models have this focus to some extent, but the strength of the focus can vary between VR models, as can the definition of the labor market. In SE a rapid entry to the regular labor market is an important principle, and so is paid work (30, 31), while the other VR models may not apply rapidity and have a less strict definition of the labor market and paid work, including for example internships and sheltered work. As the survey did not define what type of work (paid job or unpaid internship) the activities in the VR process were intended to help participants obtain, there may be different representations of work among participants that influence their experiences of goal attainment in terms of obtaining a job. However, despite the differences between VR models in terms of coordination goals and definitions of entering the labor market, both individualized support, coordination support, and labor market focus are elements that should be seen as constituent parts of the VR models.
The finding that the specific model is less important than its elements aligns with findings in other fields, such as psychotherapy, where research indicates that the specific factors associated with various methods have limited explanatory value regarding the methods’ efficacy and the identification of what helps. Instead, as for example Wampold et al. (38), suggest that common factors found across the board, regardless of theoretical approach or technique, may be of greater importance. Previous studies of user satisfaction in VR have highlighted the influence of the actual vocational services model to a greater extent (2, 26, 27). However, as several of these VR models build upon a person-centered approach, the results of this study are not contrary but rather are in line, as the factors found to be important for satisfaction in this study might be more easily achieved in a VR model where there are good conditions for providing person-centered services. As, for example, SE methods, where the organizational conditions with a smaller case load in combination with a clearly stated principle that the service is to be designed according to the individual's wishes and needs should provide professionals with real opportunities to focus on entry-level person-centered support in the process and participants’ influence over services (39, 40).
Theoretically, it could thus be argued that the SE intervention should have been the VR intervention with the most satisfied users, as the method should focus on employment and social inclusion in the regular labor market (39), in combination with a person-centered approach aiming to create a working alliance with the user (40, 41). Instead, the most satisfied users were among those who received CM intervention; this support model theoretically has a strong focus on partnership and trustful relationships but does not have a specific work focus (28). However, in this trial, the CM intervention had a work focus, but the intervention given was substantially less work oriented (i.e., time spent talking about work) than the SE intervention and instead focused on a broader scope, encompassing support regarding health and social issues to a substantially greater degree than the SE intervention (29). Hence, in practice, participants may experience “whole-life” support, where the support also targets other challenges that impact successful employment, as much, or more, of importance for the experience of satisfaction with services than a stronger focus on work support and less on support with health and social issues.
User satisfaction may also be influenced by the experienced timeliness of support and by what individuals themselves consider their most important needs for the time being and how their needs are experienced as related to each other. As many participants may face multiple work-related challenges and barriers, e.g., related to their health, social situation and employability, a whole-life support approach may seem to be the most fair and feasible approach because the challenges and barriers are most likely intertwined and hence need to be addressed as such. The importance of VR methods for addressing several life areas, such as work support and mental health simultaneously, has been found in previous Swedish studies on users’ experiences with VR (26, 27). A “whole-life” support is also well in line with the person-centered approach with its starting point in individual situations and needs.
In the trial, the CM intervention was found to be the most intense support intervention (29), which may have influenced the higher user satisfaction. The intensity of the support, i.e., the time allocated to support, has been shown to be important for the construction of a work alliance. Topor et al. (42), found that both quality and quantity of time matter for work alliances in psychiatry interventions, where quantity of time relates to the experience of having more time during, between, and after the sessions than expected. The quality of time related to having focused time together and to the sense of being a “real-life” person, who was in the professional's thought between the sessions and where the timing followed the person's needs. The quality of the working alliance has also been shown to be influenced by the attitude of the professional (case manager) and the practical support they offer (43). Both the quantity and quality of time and practical support are to some extent captured in the person-centeredness index used in this study and as seen in the results, associated with user satisfaction. Hence, support persons, who put effort into creating a person-centered working alliance with their service users are likely to also have more satisfied users.
Another interesting result in this study is that whether the participants were or had been in employment, internship or studies during the intervention did not seem to affect the level of satisfaction with the services on any significant level. This finding is inconsistent with previous findings where positive employment outcomes, if also combined with job satisfaction, seem to lead to better user satisfaction (2). In this study, there were no observations of the influence of job satisfaction on overall satisfaction with support, but employment outcomes were greater for the SE intervention than for the CM intervention and the RVR intervention, although with rather moderate differences of approximately ten percentage points (29). However, as these employment outcomes were measured after 18 months and through the use of a questionnaire after only 6 months, the correlation between employment outcomes and user satisfaction might have been weaker at the beginning of the interventions, when fewer employment outcomes were reached. The association between user satisfaction and the experience that the activities in the VR process help with getting a job may be related to the timing of the questionnaire, where expectations to achieve a successful employment outcome in the near future may still be high after 6 months into the VR process, especially if the service users experience trust in their support persons and their supportive behaviors.
The experience of a high level of person-centeredness in the VR process may also relate to whether the participants themselves have decided on the tempo in the process where principles of rapid job search and rapid job entry, as emphasized in the European Union of Supported Employment (44), may not be entirely in line with the individuals’ wishes and needs, at least not from a short-term perspective. That service users have different preferences and needs related to the rapidness of job entry is something that employment specialists in VR have highlighted (45), as are gendered preferences in relation to tempo in VR services, where women prefer a slower process of job entry than men (28). This preference could have altered the employment outcomes in the trial, as men were more likely to have reached employment in all interventions after 15 months, with the largest sex differences demonstrated in the SE intervention, followed by the CM intervention (33). These sex differences were less significant after 18 months of age (29). However, for user satisfaction with services, there were no significant sex differences in which factors men and women relate to satisfaction with VR services, suggesting that a person-centered approach and trustful relationships in VR meet the needs and preferences of both men and women, irrespective of what needs and preferences are or the gendered influence on VR outcomes.
4.2 Strengths and limitations
This study has several strengths and limitations that should be mentioned. For the latter, a central limitation is the lack of data on method fidelity in the interventions. The results regarding satisfaction with the specific interventions should therefore be interpreted with that in mind, as there are no data on to what extent the interventions followed the fidelity criteria for each method. However, the factors examined across the methods were quite specific and guided by a theoretical framework on person-centeredness as well as by previous empirical findings. This could be considered a strength, as earlier research highlights that the concept of person-centered rehabilitation suffers from a lack of detail and clarification, despite the growing recognition of person-centeredness as an essential component of rehabilitation quality (46). Another limitation is the cross-sectional design and the timing of the questionnaire in relation to some of the questions asked, as satisfaction with services may fluctuate over time, depending not only on employment outcomes (23, 24) but also on fluctuating health conditions (such as mental illness) (24). Regarding trust in the support person and partnership, the timing of the questionnaire is more appropriate, as De Leeuw et al. (43) indicated that working alliances are established in the first 3 months of a patient–case manager relationship. However, as user satisfaction with services should be understood as a process in which the working alliance, including goal agreements, actions taken, and relational bonds, are likely to change over time, user satisfaction needs to be measured at several time points to understand more fully how user satisfaction is associated with VR services.
The main strengths of the study are the horizontal perspective on user satisfaction across different VR interventions, as few rehabilitation programs include service users’ perspectives on satisfaction (47), and the rather large sample of participants with disabilities. Survey studies often poorly represent this target group, as recruitment often fails to include people with disabilities due to accessibility barriers (48). When completing the questionnaire, the participants could choose to get help with filling out the questionnaire by letting someone (their support person in the interventions or another person of their choice) read the questions and answer aloud from the other side of the table; hence, the participants were hiding their answers from the reader. As shown in Table 4, approximately 30 percent of the participants chose to be helped, which may have impacted participation but also the way the participants answered the questions, whether social influence and compliance came into play. However, as Table 4 shows, there were no significant differences in the use of help with completing the questionnaire.
Another methodological issue is that there were significantly more participants in the RCT with CM as an intervention who responded to the questionnaire. This finding might imply that persons in the two other interventions, RVR and SE, were less satisfied or indifferent to the support and intervention. If this is the case, the results from this study might be skewed.
Apart from the external missing data, there were considerable amounts of internal missing data for the variables used in the full ordinal logistic regression model. In particular, the variables “The activities help with getting a job” and Person-centeredness, which had approximately 20% internal missing data each, are worth noting. The missing data points in turn led to approximately 30% of the possible data points in the full ordinal logistic regression model being missing, which might have skewed the data. An explanation for why there were more missing data points for these two variables may be the difference in the response alternatives for the variables. The variables “The activities help with getting a job” and Person-centeredness were measured on a 4-point ordinal Likert scale; for example, the variables Satisfaction and Trust were measured on a 3-point ordinal Likert scale with more articulated response alternatives, which might have been easier to understand for persons with cognitive disabilities who were part of the sample (47).
Another methodological issue is the instability of the independent variable Trust. According to the full ordinal logistic regression model, which included the variable Trust, there were no problems violating the assumption of proportional odds; however, when Trust was tested independently, the variable violated the assumption of proportional odds to some extent. This means that the trustworthiness of the results in regard to the variable Trust might be questionable. On the other hand, on a conceptual level, one could argue that trust is indeed important for satisfaction and success with VR services (49); therefore, the results might still be valid.
5 Conclusions and directions for future research
The experiences of a high level of person-centeredness and trust in the support person in the VR process and the experiences of that the activities help with getting a job are more important for satisfaction among service users than the actual model of interventions in VR services. The person-centered indicators of importance to satisfaction were that the support worker listens, provides information and timely and accessible support, and plans the process together with the service users and agrees on their goals. Given that user participation is a central prerequisite in VR many services, the indicators for a person-centered approach used in this study may provide guidance on how to design services that meet individual needs and preferences for service delivery, as well as for influence over and involvement in one's own rehabilitation process. This is important for the efficiency and quality of VR services and for improving the labor market inclusion of people with disabilities.
Future research is needed to validate these findings and to study how these important factors might be implemented to an even greater extent.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available for the protection of study participant privacy. The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethical approval, granted by the regional Ethics Committee (Stockholm; dnr. 2014/1280-31/5). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
JG: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IW: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research received financial support from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency and the Swedish Public Employment Service, for the data collection. For the preparation of the manuscript, the project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101026526.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank all the participants for their contribution to this study, alongside all others involved in the randomized controlled trial under the lead of Professor Peter Skogman Thoursie, for all contributions in the data collection. Gratitude is also directed to those who provided us with very useful input on the manuscript during research seminars at the Centre for the study of professions and in the Integrate-project, at Oslo Metropolitan University, and in the research group WISER, at Aalborg University.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fresc.2025.1573753/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Chamberlain MA, Fialka Moser V, Schüldt Ekholm K, O’Connor RJ, Herceg M, Ekholm J. Vocational rehabilitation: an educational review. J Rehabil Med. (2009) 41(11):856–69. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0457
2. Al-Rashaida M, López-Paz JF, Amayra I, Lázaro E, Martínez O, Berrocoso S, et al. Factors affecting the satisfaction of people with disabilities in relation to vocational rehabilitation programs: a literature review. J Vocat Rehabil. (2018) 49(1):97–115. doi: 10.3233/JVR-180957
3. Brown A, Ford T, Deighton J, Wolpert M. Satisfaction in child and adolescent mental health services: translating Users’ feedback into measurement. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2014) 41(4):434–46. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0433-9
4. Plewnia A, Bengel J, Körner M. Patient-centeredness and its impact on patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes in medical rehabilitation. Patient Educ Couns. (2016) 99(12):2063–70. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.018
5. Försäkringskassan. Aktivitetsersättning vid nedsatt arbetsförmåga för dig under 30 år. [The Swedish Social Insurance Agency. Activity allowances when workability is reduced, under the age of 30]. Available at: Aktivitetsersättning vid nedsatt arbetsförmåga för dig under 30 år - Försäkringskassan (forsakringskassan.se). (Accessed February 3, 2025).
6. Försäkringskassan. Arbetslivsinriktad rehabilitering. [The Swedish Social Insurance Agency. Vocational rehabilitation.]. Available at: Arbetslivsinriktad rehabilitering - Försäkringskassan (forsakringskassan.se). (Accessed February 3, 2025).
7. Försäkringskassan. PM 2024:1 Försäkringskassans Kundundersökning 2024. [The Swedish Social Insurance Agency. User survey 2024] Stockholm. (2024). Available at: https://www.forsakringskassan.se/download/18.5228c0291932019e848842/1736751515968/forsakringskassans-kundundersokning-2024-pm-2024-1.pdf (Accessed February 03, 2025).
8. Rosengren K, Brannefors P, Carlstrom E. Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse in Europe: a systematic literature review. J Health Organ Manag. (2021) 35(9):265–80. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-01-2021-0008
9. Ekman I, Swedberg K, Taft C, Lindseth A, Norberg A, Brink E, et al. Person-centered care — ready for prime time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. (2011) 10(4):248–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.008
10. Ekman I, Hedman H, Swedberg K, Wallengren C. Commentary: swedish initiative on person centred care. Br Med J. (2015) 350:h160–h160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h160
11. Yun D, Choi J. Person-centered rehabilitation care and outcomes: a systematic literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. (2019) 93:74–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.02.012
12. Reed K, Fadyl JK, Anstiss D, Levack WMM. Experiences of vocational rehabilitation and support services for people living with a long term condition: qualitative systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. (2022) 44(26):8213–21. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.2022779
13. Medina-Mirapeix F, Oliveira-Sousa SL, Sobral-Ferreira M, Montilla-Herrador J, Jimeno-Serrano FJ, Escolar-Reina P. What elements of the informational, management, and relational continuity are associated with patient satisfaction with rehabilitation care and global rating change? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2013) 94:2248–54. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.04.018
14. Morera-Balaguer J, Botella-Rico JM, Catalán-Matamoros D, Martínez-Segura OR, Leal-Clavel M, Rodríguez-Nogueira Ó. Patients’ experience regarding therapeutic person-centered relationships in physiotherapy services: a qualitative study. Physiother Theory Pract. (2021) 37(1):17–27. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2019.1603258
15. Constand MK, MacDermid JC, Dal Bello-Haas V, Law M. Scoping review of patient-centered care approaches in healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. (2014) 14(1):271–271. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-271
16. Kitson A, Marshall A, Bassett K, Zeitz K. What are the core elements of patient-centred care? A narrative review and synthesis of the literature from health policy, medicine and nursing. J Adv Nurs. (2013) 69(1):4–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06064.x
17. Bordin ES. The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill). (1979) 16(3):252–60. doi: 10.1037/h0085885
18. Torres A, Diaz P, Freund R, Baker TN, Baker AZ, Peluso P. Therapeutic alliance in vocational rehabilitation counseling: assessing client factors and functioning. J Vocat Rehabil. (2021) 55(3):313–22. doi: 10.3233/JVR-211165
19. Topor A, Ljungberg A. “Everything is so relaxed and personal” - the construction of helpful relationships in individual placement and support. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. (2016) 19(4):275–93. doi: 10.1080/15487768.2016.1255276
20. Catty J, Koletsi M, White S, Becker T, Fioritti A, Kalkan R, et al. Therapeutic relationships: their specificity in predicting outcomes for people with psychosis using clinical and vocational services. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2010) 45(12):1187–93. doi: 10.1007/s00127-009-0163-9
21. Ljungberg A, Denhov A, Topor A. The art of helpful relationships with professionals: a meta-ethnography of the perspective of persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Q. (2015) 86(4):471–95. doi: 10.1007/s11126-015-9347-5
22. Lustig DC, Donnell CM, Strauser DR. The working alliance: rehabilitation outcomes for persons with severe mental illness. J Rehabil. (2004) 70(2):12–8. Available at: https://db.ub.oru.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/working-alliance-rehabilitation-outcomes-persons/docview/236292072/se-2
23. Davis L, Lysaker P. Therapeutic alliance and improvements in work performance over time in patients with schizophrenia. J Nerv Ment Dis. (2007) 195(4):353–7. doi: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000261954.36030.a1
24. Waghorn G, De Souza T, Rampton N, Lloyd C. The working alliance in supported employment for people with severe mental health problems. Int J Ther Rehabil. (2009) 16(6):315–23. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.6.42434
25. Kukla M, Bond GR. The working alliance and employment outcomes for people with severe mental illness enrolled in vocational programs. Rehabil Psychol. (2009) 54(2):157–63. doi: 10.1037/a0015596
26. Andersén Å, Ståhl C, Anderzén I, Kristiansson P, Larsson K. Positive experiences of a vocational rehabilitation intervention for individuals on long-term sick leave, the dirigo project: a qualitative study. BMC public Health. (2017) 17(1):790–790. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4804-8
27. Porter S, Lexén A, Johanson S, Bejerholm U. Critical factors for the return-to-work process among people with affective disorders: voices from two vocational approaches. Work (Reading, Mass). (2018) 60(2):221–34. doi: 10.3233/WOR-182737
28. Witte I, Strandberg T, Gustafsson J. Does gender matter in supported employment? A qualitative study of participants’ experiences. J Vocat Rehabil. (2024) 61(2):219–34. doi: 10.3233/JVR-240030
29. Fogelgren M, Ornstein P, Rödin M, Thoursie PS. Is supported employment effective for young adults with disability pension? Evidence from a Swedish randomized evaluation. J Hum Resour. (2023) 58(2):452–87. doi: 10.3368/jhr.58.4.0319-10105R2
30. Drake R, Bond G, Becker D. Individual Placement and Support: An Evidence-based Approach to Supported Employment. New York: Oxford University Press (2012). doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199734016.001.0001
31. Wehman P. Supported competitive employment for persons with severe disabilities. J Appl Rehabil Couns. (1986) 17(4):24–9. doi: 10.1891/0047-2220.17.4.24
32. Dieterich M, Irving CB, Bergman H, Khokhar MA, Park B, Marshall M, et al. Intensive case management for severe mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2017) 2017(1):CD007906–CD007906. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007906.pub3
33. Försäkringskassan. Effektutvärdering av Insatser för Unga med Aktivitetsersättning – Socialförsäkringsrapport 2017:5 [A Randomized Evaluation of Interventions for Young People with Disability Pension – Social Insurance Report 2017:5]. Stockholm: Försäkringskassan (2017). Available at: https://www.forsakringskassan.se/wps/wcm/connect/d37af317-9573-4e13-8621-8e0cd025b629/effektutvardering-av-insatser-for-unga-med-aktivitetsersattning-socialforsakringsrapport-2017-5.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID= (Accessed February 3, 2025).
34. The Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. LSS 1993:387, Lag om Stöd och Service Till Vissa Funktionshindrade [Law on Support and Service for People with Certain Disabilities]. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet (1993).
35. Menard S. Logistic Regression: From Introductory to Advanced Concepts and Applications. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications (2010).
36. O'Connell AA. Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variable. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications (2006).
37. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life - the Assessment, Analysis and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes. Newark: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2016).
38. Wampold B, Imel Z. Specific Effects. Where are They? in the Great Psychotherapy Debate – the Evidence for What Makes Psychotherapy Work. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge (2015). p. 213–54.
39. Gustafsson J, Peralta J, Danermark B. Supported employment and social inclusion - experiences of workers with disabilities in wage subsidized employment in Sweden. Scand J Disabil Res. (2018) 20(1):26–36. doi: 10.16993/sjdr.36
40. Kinn LG, Costa M, Voll I, Austrheim G, Aas RW, Davidson L. “Navigating between unpredictable icebergs”: a meta-ethnographic study of employment Specialists’ contributions in providing job support for people with mental illness. J Occup Rehabil. (2021) 31(3):512–31. doi: 10.1007/s10926-020-09943-6
41. King J, Waghorn G. How higher performing employment specialists engage and support job-seekers with psychiatric disabilities. J Rehabil. (2018) 84(2):48–56. Available at: https://db.ub.oru.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/how-higher-performing-employment-specialists/docview/2068980559/se-2
42. Topor A, Denhov A. Helping relationships and time: inside the black box of the working alliance. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. (2012) 15(3):239–54. doi: 10.1080/15487768.2012.703544
43. de Leeuw M, van Meijel B, Grypdonck M, Kroon H. The quality of the working alliance between chronic psychiatric patients and their case managers: process and outcomes. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. (2012) 19(1):1–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01741.x
44. European Union of Supported Employment. European Union of Supported Employment – Toolkit. Dundee: European Union of Supported Employment (2010). Available at: http://www.euse.org/content/supported-employment-toolkit/EUSE-Toolkit-2010.pdf (Accessed November 17, 2023).
45. Witte I, Strandberg T, Gustafsson J. Social representations of gender and their influence in supported employment: employment specialists’ experiences in Sweden. Disabil Rehabil. (2023) 46(15):3381–95. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2023.2247975
46. Jesus TS, Bright F, Kayes N, Cott CA. Person-centred rehabilitation: what exactly does it mean? Protocol for a scoping review with thematic analysis towards framing the concept and practice of person-centred rehabilitation. BMJ Open. (2016) 6(7):e011959–e011959. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011959
47. Wilson E, Campain R, Moore M, Hagiliassis N, McGillivray J, Gottliebson D, et al. An accessible survey method: increasing the participation of people with a disability in large sample social research. Telecommun J Aust. (2013) 63(2):411. doi: 10.18080/TJA.v63n2.411
48. Allgood M. Increasing equitable access to individuals with disabilities: participation in electronic public administration research. J Public Nonprofit Aff. (2021) 7(3):434–42. doi: 10.20899/jpna.7.3.434-442
Keywords: vocational rehabilitation, service user satisfaction, supported employment, case management, person-centered rehabilitation, disability
Citation: Gustafsson J and Witte I (2025) Analysis of factors influencing satisfaction with vocational rehabilitation services for young persons with disabilities in Sweden. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 6:1573753. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2025.1573753
Received: 9 February 2025; Accepted: 14 May 2025;
Published: 30 May 2025.
Edited by:
Gail Anne Mountain, University of Bradford, United KingdomReviewed by:
Teresa Maria Sgaramella, University of Padua, ItalyZhuoying Qiu, University of Health and Rehabilitation, China
Copyright: © 2025 Gustafsson and Witte. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Johanna Gustafsson, am9oYW5uYS5ndXN0YWZzc29uQG9ydS5zZQ==
†ORCID:
Johanna Gustafsson
orcid.org/0000-0003-3023-3422
Ingrid Witte
orcid.org/0000-0002-3793-1031