Workplace participatory intervention for return to work of sick-listed employees with stress-related illnesses |
|
Author(s): Sandra van Oostrom, Johannes Anema, Berend Terluin, Anita Venema, Henrica CW deVet & Willem van Mechelen Country: Netherlands |
|
Is the intervention sector specific? |
No |
Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? |
Yes |
Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? |
Yes |
Is the intervention based on theory? |
Yes |
Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? |
Yes |
Does the intervention promote CSR and how? |
The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being |
Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how? |
Active and structured communication and dialogue between employee and their supervisor is a central component of this intervention |
Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
The intervention is designed for employees who are currently on sick leave due to or related to stress-related mental disorders; and has the overall objective of helping facilitate successful return to work. This intervention is based on a previous intervention for return to work of sick-listed employees due to low back pain; whereby its effectiveness has been substantiated through numerous scientific evaluations. The current intervention is a participatory workplace intervention; underpinned by the principles of participatory ergonomics1. This participatory workplace intervention for return to work consists of a stepwise process aimed to identify and resolve barriers for return to work. Accomplished by mutually developed return-to-work action plan by the sick-listed employee and his/her supervisor; through a structured process of communication facilitated by a return-to-work (RTW) co-ordinator. |
|
Implementation:
There are several steps to this intervention: In the first step, the sick-listed employee is referred to the RTW coordinator by their occupational physician. Secondly, the RTW co-ordinator contacts the employee and his or her supervisor to arrange a series of meetings. Then, separate meetings are held between the RTW co-ordinator and the employee, and, subsequently, with the supervisor; with the overall objective of discussing the barriers for return to work in structured conversations. The structured conversation with the RTW co-ordinator are based on a task analysis where the tasks involved in the employees’ job are identified and outlined, and for each task the barriers for return to work are identified. Based on the outlined barriers for RTW, the employee and supervisor discuss possible solutions to the identified problems/barriers; these solutions can relate to changes in work conditions, work content or relationships. Based on the list of solutions derived through the series of discussions between employee and supervisor, the solutions identified with a high degree of feasibility to implement are outlined; and, moreover, a method in which to implement these solutions is developed. One month following the meetings and developed action plan, the RTW co-ordinator contacts the supervisor and employee to evaluate the progress of implementation and how these solutions have contributed to the RTW of the employee. |
|
Practical applications:
It should be noted that prior to instigating the intervention the RTW co-coordinator received training, provided by a trained psychologist. The intervention is currently being implemented and evaluated in three occupational sectors: in industry, a hospital, and a university. However, the main structure of this intervention, conducted on individuals with low back pain, has been successfully used and evaluated in a large variety of occupational sectors and sizes of enterprises (small, medium and large). |
|
Innovative aspects:
This participatory workplace intervention for return to work consists of a stepwise process to identify and solve barriers for return to work; based on a consensus of an action plan to facilitate return to work between the sick-listed employee and his/her supervisor. |
|
Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
The evaluation of the effectiveness of this intervention is currently ongoing. Participants, individuals on sick leave for 2 to 8 weeks with common mental disorders, were randomly assigned to either: (a) the participatory workplace intervention; or (b) usual care. Measurements were taken prior to the intervention/usual care and assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following. The primary outcome to assess the effectiveness of the intervention is lasting return-to-work, which will be acquired from continuous registration systems of the companies after the follow-up. Secondary outcomes are total number of days of sick leave during the follow-up, severity of common mental disorders, coping style, job content, and attitude, social influence, and self-efficacy determinants. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation of the intervention will be assessed by: examining the level of participation by both employee and supervisor during the process; and the overall level of satisfaction with the intervention by both health professionals, and the employee and supervisor. Additionally, an economic evaluation of cost effectiveness of the intervention will be conducted. |
|
Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
The evaluation of the current study is currently ongoing, and benefits accrued due to intervention cannot be at this time specifically discussed nor outlined. Albeit the principle investigator informally suggests that even at this early stage, the intervention appears to have a beneficial impact on sick-listed employees’ overall well-being. |
|
References:
Van Oostrom, S.H., Anema, R.J., Terluin, B., Venema, A., de Vet, CW, & van Mechelen, W. (2007). Development of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with stress-related mental disorders: Intervention Mapping as a useful tool. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 127 retrieved fromhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6963-7-127.pdf.
Van Oostrom S.H., Anema J.R, Terluin B. ; de Vet H., Knol D., van Mechelen W. (2007). Cost-effectiveness of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with common mental disorders: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research, 8(1), 12. |
|
Comments:
1 Participatory ergonomics refers to a broad range of methods and techniques. These methods apply the active participation of workers/ and or other key stakeholders in the process in the planning and controlling their work activities; and moreover innovating their workplace. In so doing, developing or further promoting a health workplace. |