The evidence is
peer-reviewed, published,
and real-world.

LeapForward has been independently studied by researchers at two of Australia's
leading universities. Both studies were published in international peer-reviewed
journals and used real compensation claimants — not controlled laboratory
conditions.

🎓

University of Sydney
Stratton & Glozier, 2026 — Disability and Rehabilitation

🎓

University of South Australia
Brinsley et al., 2023 — Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

HEADLINE FINDINGS ACROSS BOTH STUDIES

d=1.13

Effect size for wellbeing improvement — classified as large

Stratton & Glozier, 2026

d=0.88

Effect size for reduction in psychological distress — large

Stratton & Glozier, 2026

72%

Program completion rate among workers' compensation claimants

Brinsley et al., 2023

10×

Increase in participants working at program completion

Brinsley et al., 2023

Published research

Two independent studies.
Consistent results.

Both studies used real claimants referred through insurer pathways — making the findings directly applicable to claims environments.

📄 Disability and Rehabilitation · Taylor & Francis · Open Access
Digital psychosocial recovery program after motor vehicle accident in compensation claimants: proof-of-concept study
E. Stratton & N. Glozier — Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney
2026
Published
University of Sydney
Study overview

A mixed-methods pre-post study evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary psychosocial outcomes of LeapForward as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation care for CTP insurance claimants after motor vehicle accidents.

53 adult participants were referred by case managers at IAG Insurance (NSW CTP scheme). Participants had Soft-Tissue or Orthopaedic injuries. Baseline and post-program assessments measured psychological distress, wellbeing, and self-efficacy. The study also included qualitative interviews to capture participant experience.

Participants were stratified into early (≤12 weeks post-MVA) and late-stage (≥13 weeks) groups to test whether timing of intervention affected outcomes — it did not. Both groups showed meaningful improvement.

Key findings
−7 pts
Reduction in psychological distress (K10). Cohen's d=0.88 — a large effect. Very high distress dropped from 47.2% to 15.1% of participants.
+33 pts
Improvement in wellbeing (WHO-5). Cohen's d=1.13 — a large effect. Those rating "good" wellbeing rose from 15.1% to 66.0%.
d=0.26
Statistically significant improvement in self-efficacy — participants felt more equipped to manage challenges and their recovery.
79%
Of participants completed post-intervention measures. 62.3% achieved high exposure (≥5 of 6 modules).
Both
Early and late-stage claimants improved. LeapForward was effective regardless of how long ago the injury occurred.
📄 Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · ACRM · Peer Reviewed
A Digital Lifestyle Program for Psychological Distress, Wellbeing and Return-to-Work: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Jacinta Brinsley PhD, Ben Singh PhD, Carol A Maher PhD — Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), University of South Australia
2023
Published
Uni of South Australia
Study overview

A retrospective cohort study with pre-post measures assessing engagement, adherence, and preliminary effectiveness of an AI virtual health coach-led lifestyle medicine and psychoeducation program for people on an active workers' compensation claim.

78 adult participants (mean age 46, 32% female) were referred by case managers at EML Insurance. Participants had physical or psychological primary injuries. Outcomes measured included K10 (distress), WHO-5 (wellbeing), RTW confidence and anxiety, and change in work status.

This was the first peer-reviewed evaluation of an AI-led lifestyle program for active workers' compensation claimants — and found high completion and engagement rates alongside significant improvements across all psychological outcomes.

Key findings
72%
Program completion rate (60 of 78 participants). Favourable compared to other digital return-to-work interventions in the literature.
p<.001
Significant improvements in distress (r=.47), depression (r=.55), anxiety (r=.46), and wellbeing (r=.62) — all large effect sizes.
2→20
Participants working at baseline vs. at completion. Significant improvement in work status (p≤.001). A 10-fold increase in RTW.
95%
Telehealth coaching session completion rate across the 6-week program. 73% daily AI coach session completion.
r=.51
Significant improvement in return-to-work confidence (p≤.001, large effect). RTW anxiety unchanged — suggesting program builds confidence without false reassurance.

WHAT THE RESEARCH MEANS

Implications for rehabilitation
practice.

Drawn directly from the published papers — what the researchers concluded about
how LeapForward should be used.

🔄

Scalable adjunct to standard care

Digital psychosocial interventions like LeapForward can serve as scalable adjuncts to standard rehabilitation care — complementing, not replacing, existing clinical pathways.

Early integration is beneficial

Early integration and tailored delivery may optimise engagement and functional recovery. The research shows value at all claim stages, with the strongest potential when deployed early.

📱

High usability supports adoption

High usability and acceptability support integration into daily routines and coping strategies. Participants described the program as accessible, clear, and easy to use independently.

📊

Improvements strengthen recovery outcomes

Improvements in wellbeing, distress, and self-efficacy show potential to strengthen recovery outcomes — addressing the psychosocial barriers that delay physical recovery and return to work.

🏥

Suitable across injury types and timing

Both studies included physical and psychological primary injuries, and the 2026 study confirmed no difference in outcomes between early and late-stage claimants.

🔗

Referral pathway integration is feasible

Both studies used case manager referral from major Australian insurers — demonstrating that integration into existing insurer and rehabilitation pathways is practical and achievable at scale.

Study comparison

Two studies, two populations, consistent findings.

The research spans workers' compensation and CTP insurance claimants — demonstrating LeapForward's applicability across different injury and claim types.

Feature Brinsley et al. 2023 Stratton & Glozier 2026
UniversityUniversity of South AustraliaUniversity of Sydney
JournalArchives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationDisability and Rehabilitation
PopulationWorkers' compensation claimantsCTP (MVA) compensation claimants
Insurer partnerEML InsuranceIAG Insurance
Sample sizeN=78N=53
DesignRetrospective cohort, pre-postMixed-methods pre-post
Distress measureK10 (Kessler-10)K10 (Kessler-10)
Wellbeing measureWHO-5WHO-5
Completion rate72%79% post-intervention measures
Distress improvementSignificant (p≤.001, r=.47)Significant (p<.001, d=0.88)
Wellbeing improvementSignificant (p<.001, r=.62)Significant (p<.001, d=1.13)
Important context

What the research does — and doesn't — claim.

We believe in being honest about the evidence base.

Proof-of-concept studies
Both studies are proof-of-concept designs without randomised control groups. The researchers note that improvements cannot be fully attributed to the program alone, as natural recovery may also play a role. Both papers call for randomised controlled trial designs to confirm these findings. LeapForward supports this ongoing research agenda.
Real-world ecological validity
Both studies used real-world samples where participants were able to engage in treatment as usual alongside LeapForward. This enhances the practical applicability of findings — results reflect genuine usage, not controlled conditions.
Independent analysis
In the Brinsley et al. (2023) study, LeapForward contributed to study design but had no role in data analysis, manuscript preparation, or approval — supporting the independence of the findings.

FROM THE RESEARCH

It would be hugely beneficial for people that have been injured — like me,
through a car accident or in the workers' comp space. If doctors and
insurers could refer people to it, that would be great.

Participant 15, qualitative interview — Stratton & Glozier, 2026

GET THE FULL PICTURE

Want to discuss the research
with our team?

We're happy to walk you through the studies, answer questions about methodology, and explain how the evidence maps to your specific context — whether you're an insurer, employer, or rehabilitation provider.