Active access, counseling and case management for insured persons at high risk of disability - development and implementation

Active access, counseling and case management for insured persons at high risk of disability - development and implementation - AktiFAME-ENGINE

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

DRKS

Registry ID

DRKS00022468

Enrollment

Registered

2020-07-23

Start date

2020-08-05

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

chronic health problems

Interventions

Group 1: Identification of potential participants: Potential participants of our intervention are identified with a disability pension risk score. The risk score is calculated using administratively a

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

18 Years to 65 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Included are individuals who pay their pension contributions to the German Pension Insurance North, have a high risk of a disability pension (risk score of at least 60 points), meet the insurance law requirements for medical rehabilitation (cumulative insurance contributions for at least five years and cumulative insurance contributions for at least two years within the last five years), and live in Western Pomerania Rügen, Western Pomerania Greifswald, Herzogtum Lauenburg, Steinburg District.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Excluded are individuals who have used rehabilitation services in the past three years, who require medical care due to acute illnesses or who initially need support due to an addiction.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The primary outcome is work participation at the end of the intervention (employed and able to work). This variable is recorded at the beginning and end of the case management intervention.	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Various secondary outcomes are collected to reflect changes in health and participation: anxiety (0 to 4 points, Rabung et al. 2009), depression (0 to 4 points, Rabung et al. 2009), interactional difficulties (0 to 4 points, Rabung et al. 2009), interference with future employment (0 to 3 points, Mittag and Raspe 2003), participation (0 to 80 points, Deck and Bürger 2005 [modified]), quality of life (0 to 1 points, Herdman et al. 2010), perceived stress (total: 10 to 50 points, helplessness: 6 to 30 points, self-efficacy: 4 to 20 points, Schneider et al. 2020), social support (6 to 30 points, Lin et al. 2019), satisfaction in various areas of life (0 to 10, Kantar Public 2019), self-rated work ability (0 to 10, Ilmarinen 2007) and the duration of sickness absence in the past six months (0 to 26 weeks, own development). These data are collected at the beginning and end of the case management intervention. Four additional items are used to determine how well the participants are informed about services that support participation (total: 0 to 20 points, individual items: 0 to 5 points). These data are recorded at the beginning and end of the case management intervention. Three items at the end of the case management intervention assess how individualized the case management intervention has been implemented (0 to 9 points, own development). At the end of the case management interventions, participants can also evaluate how satisfied they were with the case management intervention (8 to 40 points, Schmidt et al. 1989 [modified]). In addition, the case managers use checklists to document the accuracy of the implementation of the initial telephone contact, the initial discussion and the case management intervention. These data are aggregated to three index scores (0 to 100 points, own development).	—

Measure

Time frame

Various secondary outcomes are collected to reflect changes in health and participation: anxiety (0 to 4 points, Rabung et al. 2009), depression (0 to 4 points, Rabung et al. 2009), interactional difficulties (0 to 4 points, Rabung et al. 2009), interference with future employment (0 to 3 points, Mittag and Raspe 2003), participation (0 to 80 points, Deck and Bürger 2005 [modified]), quality of life (0 to 1 points, Herdman et al. 2010), perceived stress (total: 10 to 50 points, helplessness: 6 to 30 points, self-efficacy: 4 to 20 points, Schneider et al. 2020), social support (6 to 30 points, Lin et al. 2019), satisfaction in various areas of life (0 to 10, Kantar Public 2019), self-rated work ability (0 to 10, Ilmarinen 2007) and the duration of sickness absence in the past six months (0 to 26 weeks, own development). These data are collected at the beginning and end of the case management intervention. Four additional items are used to determine how well the participants are informed about services that support participation (total: 0 to 20 points, individual items: 0 to 5 points). These data are recorded at the beginning and end of the case management intervention. Three items at the end of the case management intervention assess how individualized the case management intervention has been implemented (0 to 9 points, own development). At the end of the case management interventions, participants can also evaluate how satisfied they were with the case management intervention (8 to 40 points, Schmidt et al. 1989 [modified]). In addition, the case managers use checklists to document the accuracy of the implementation of the initial telephone contact, the initial discussion and the case management intervention. These data are aggregated to three index scores (0 to 100 points, own development).

—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactMatthias Bethge

Universität zu LübeckInstitut für Sozialmedizin und Epidemiologie

matthias.bethge@uksh.de+49 451 50051280

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 8, 2026