Social work is a common service in medical rehabilitation in Germany. However, studies show inconsistent effects of social work interventions. This study aims to compare a self-reported rehabilitation outcome, which covered all functioning domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, in patients with and without social work interventions. The analysis is based on administrative data comprising individuals admitted to medical rehabilitation services due to an orthopedic (n = 54,056) or cardiac (n = 16,955) diagnosis between 2007 and 2011. The intervention and control groups were matched by propensity scores (PS) controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, and sociomedical characteristics. A sufficient overlap of the PS allowed a successful matching in both samples. Orthopedic and cardiac patients receiving social work interventions had a worse outcome compared to the control group (d = −.20, p = .000). The results indicate a clear-cut need for in-depth analysis of social work practice in medical rehabilitation and implementation of controlled studies.
ArpinoB.CannasM. (2016). Propensity score matching with clustered data. An application to the estimation of the impact of caesarean section on the Apgar score. Statistics in Medicine, 35, 2074–2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6880
2.
AustinP. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 3083–3107. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697
3.
AustinP. C. (2011). Comparing paired vs non-paired statistical methods of analyses when making inferences about absolute risk reductions in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 11, 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4200
4.
BestehornM.BestehornF. (2018). Deterministische Methode für das exact 1:1 Matching, die die Nachteile des Propensity Score Matchings vermeidet—dargestellt an einem Datenatz zur externen Qualitätssicherung[Deterministic method for exact 1:1 matching, which avoids the disadvantages of propensity score matching—Presented on a data set for external quality assurance]. Deutsches Netzwerk für Versorgungsforschung. 17. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung (DKVF), Berlin. https://www.egms.de/static/de/meetings/dkvf2018/18dkvf026.shtml
5.
DettmersS. (2018). Gesundheitsbezogene Soziale Arbeit und soziale Teilhabe [Health-related social work and social participation]. Recht und Praxis der Rehabilitation, 1, 5–10.
DVSG. (2019). Produkt- und Leistungsbeschreibung der klinischen Sozialarbeit [Product and service description of clinical social work]. Author.
10.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. Sage.
11.
GermainC. B.GittermanA. (1980). The life model of social work practice. Columbia University Press.
12.
GrunwaldK.ThierschH. (2009). The concept of the ‘lifeworld orientation’ for social work and social care. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530902923643
13.
GuoS.FraserM. W. (2011). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences: Vol. 12. Sage.
14.
KnoopT.DettmersS.MeyerTh. (2019). Soziale Arbeit in der medizinischen Rehabilitation—Eine Literaturübersicht über den aktuellen Stand der Forschung [Social work in medical rehabilitation—A review of current research]. Die Rehabilitation, 85, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0618-0921
15.
MeyerTh. (2010). Medizinische Rehabilitation für Menschen mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen: Variation des Erfolgs zwischen Rehabilitanden und Rehabilitationskliniken[Medical rehabilitation in low-back pain—Variation of success between rehabilitation facilities] [Postdoctoral thesis, University of Lübeck].
16.
MeyerTh. (2014). Erfolg, Effekt, Outcome, Nutzen oder Wirkung? Begriffe und Konzepte im Diskurs gesundheitsbezogener Handlungswissenschaften [Success, effect, outcome, benefit, efficacy, or effectiveness? Terms and concepts in the discourse of applied health science]. Pflege & Gesellschaft, 4, 293–302.
17.
MeyerTh.GutenbrunnerC.BickenbachJ.CiezaA.MelvinJ.StuckiG. (2011). Towards a conceptual description of rehabilitation as a health strategy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43, 765–769. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0865
18.
MeyerTh.QuittanM.RauchA. (2017). Internationale Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit (ICF) [International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF)]. In CrevennaR. (Ed.): Kompendium physikalische medizin und rehabilitation. Diagnostische und therapeutische konzepte[Compendium of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Diagnostic and therapeutic concepts] (pp. 71–88). Springer.
19.
MühlumA.Gödecker-GeenenN. (2003). Soziale Arbeit in der Rehabilitation[Social work in rehabilitation]. Reinhardt.
20.
RöhD. (2006). Die Mandate der Sozialen Arbeit: In wessen Auftrag arbeiten wir? [Social Work mandatory—In which order do we work]. Soziale Arbeit, 55, 442–449.
21.
RosenbaumP. R. (2002). Observational studies. Springer.
22.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
23.
RubinD.ThomasN. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52, 249. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533160
24.
SommerfeldP. (2005). Introduction: Evidence-based practice—The end of professional social work or architect of a new professionalism. In SommerfeldP.HerzogP. (Eds.), Evidence-based social work—Towards a new professionalism? (pp. 7–29). Lang.
StreibeltM.Gödecker-GeenenN.AdolphH.KeßlerC. (2018). Zugang zum Sozialdienst in Reha-einrichtungen-Ergebnisse der DVSG Mitgliederbefragung 2017 (Teil II) [Access to social services in rehabilitation facilities]. FORUM Sozialarbeit + Gesundheit, 1, 33–37.
28.
StuckiG.BickenbachJ.GutenbrunnerC.MelvinJ. (2018). Rehabilitation: The health strategy of the 21st century. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 50, 309–316. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2200
29.
VogelM.WaltherA. L.DeckR. (2017). Telefonische sozialdienstliche Nachsorge zur Verbesserung der beruflichen Reintegration nach stationärer medizinischer Rehabilitation: [Telephone aftercare by social services to improve return to work after medical rehabilitation]. Die Rehabilitation, 56, 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-111614
30.
VolkeE.BrüggemannS. (2010). Reha-Therapiestandards sichern Qualität: Welchen Anteil hat die Soziale Arbeit und wie kann die dies dokumentieren? [Standards of rehabilitative interventions ensure the quality of care: What part does social work play and how can social work document this?]. FORUM Sozialarbeit + Gesundheit, 1, 32–34.
31.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Author.
