Objective: The article presents the results of research on the impact of vocational rehabilitation on the quality of life of persons with disabilities. In three regions of the Czech Republic, as part of an ESF project (reg. no. CZ.03.3.X/0.0/0.0/17_082/0015504), three experimental vocational rehabilitation centers were established. These centers, in collaboration with the Labor Offi ces, tested the eff ectiveness of innovative vocational rehabilitation methods. Sample and methodology: A total of 123 individuals with various degrees and types of disabilities were included in the intervention group (IG). The quality of life was examined in the IG, i.e., participants in the vocational rehabilitation program provided in cooperation with the pilot vocational rehabilitation centers, who agreed to participate in the research (N = 93). The participants were surveyed using the WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire. The results were compared before entering the vocational rehabilitation (A), at the end of the vocational rehabilitation (B), and for employed participants (N = 59), and also 3 months after starting employment (C). Data collection took place from 2021 to 2022. Results: Participants who maintained employment for at least three months reported an increase in quality of life in all six monitored areas. A signifi cant increase in quality of life was particularly evident in the domains of participation and life activities. Measurable improvement in quality of life did not occur in the domains of mobility and self-care. Issues with mobility and self-care were generally perceived by participants as the least problematic at the project‘s outset. Conclusions: The research results indicate that vocational rehabilitation has a positive impact on improving the quality of life for participants involved. All surveyed participants experienced improvements in life activities (including work-related aspects) and social participation, regardless of whether they maintained employment for at least 3 months or not.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Džambasov et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: