Search

Background: Problem-solving interventions with workplace involvement (PSI-WPI) have been shown to reduce sick leave and increase return to work in an occupational health services context. However, many employees struggle with reduced work functioning, anxiety-, and depressive symptoms up to 12 months after a sick leave episode, and it is unclear if the intervention affects outcomes other than sick leave. The aim of this study is to investigate if a PSI-WPI added to care as usual (CAU) is superior to CAU with respect to self-reported sick leave, psychological symptoms, work ability, work performance, and health after RTW when provided in primary care. Methods: Employed individuals aged 18–59 years on sick leave (2 to 12 weeks) diagnosed by a physician at a primary care center with mild to moderate depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorder were enrolled in a two-armed cluster-randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of a PSI-WPI. Multiple outcomes were recorded at baseline, six months, 12 months, and every fourth week during the study period. Outcomes were categorised into psychological symptoms, health, work ability, work performance, and self-reported sick leave. Data were analysed using MANOVA, GEE (Generalized Estimating Equations), and cox regression. Results: One hundred ninety-nine individuals responded to the invitation to participate; one participant withdrew, one was excluded as the employment ended, nine did not answer the baseline survey, and three were removed from the analysis due to missing data. The analysis included 81 subjects who received the intervention and 104 subjects who received the control. Baseline characteristics were similar across both groups. No differences between the groups were found among either variables except one. There was a significant difference between the groups in self-rated health (EQ5D) in favour of the CAU group from baseline to six-month follow-up, with a mean difference of -8.44 (-14.84, -2.04). Conclusions: A problem-solving intervention with workplace involvement added to CAU did not result in statistically significant reductions in outcomes. Further research is needed to understand why problem-solving interventions appear to have an effect on sick leave in an occupational health services context and not in a primary care context. Trial registration: NCT3346395, registration date 2017–11-17. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Work-directed interventions that include problem-solving can reduce the number of sickness absence days. The effect of combining a problem-solving intervention with involvement of the employer is currently being tested in primary care in Sweden for employees on sickness absence due to common mental disorders (PROSA trial). The current study is part of the PROSA trial and has a two-fold aim: 1) to explore the experiences of participating in a problem-solving intervention with workplace involvement aimed at reducing sickness absence in employees with common mental disorders, delivered in Swedish primary health care, and 2) to identify facilitators of and barriers to participate in the intervention. Both aims targeted rehabilitation coordinators, employees on sickness absence, and first-line managers. Methods Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with participants from the PROSA intervention group; rehabilitation coordinators (n = 8), employees (n = 13), and first-line managers (n = 8). Content analysis was used to analyse the data and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to group the data according to four contextual domains. One theme describing the participation experiences was established for each domain. Facilitators and barriers for each domain and stakeholder group were identified. Results The stakeholders experienced the intervention as supportive in identifying problems and solutions and enabling a dialogue between them. However, the intervention was considered demanding and good relationships between the stakeholders were needed. Facilitating factors were the manual and work sheets which the coordinators were provided with, and the manager being involved early in the return-to-work process. Barriers were the number of on-site meetings, disagreements and conflicts between employees and first-line managers, and symptom severity. Conclusions Seeing the workplace as an integral part of the intervention by always conducting a three-part meeting enabled a dialogue that can be used to identify and address disagreements, to explain CMD symptoms, and how these can be handled at the workplace. We suggest allocating time towards developing good relationships, provide RCs with training in handling disagreements, and additional knowledge about factors in the employee’s psychosocial work environment that can impair or promote health to increase the RCs ability to support the employee and manager.

Background: Work-directed interventions that include problem-solving can reduce the number of sickness absence days. The effect of combining a problem-solving intervention with involvement of the employer is currently being tested in primary care in Sweden for employees on sickness absence due to common mental disorders (PROSA trial). The current study is part of the PROSA trial and has a two-fold aim: 1) to explore the experiences of participating in a problem-solving intervention with workplace involvement aimed at reducing sickness absence in employees with common mental disorders, delivered in Swedish primary health care, and 2) to identify facilitators of and barriers to participate in the intervention. Both aims targeted rehabilitation coordinators, employees on sickness absence, and first-line managers. Methods: Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with participants from the PROSA intervention group; rehabilitation coordinators (n = 8), employees (n = 13), and first-line managers (n = 8). Content analysis was used to analyse the data and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to group the data according to four contextual domains. One theme describing the participation experiences was established for each domain. Facilitators and barriers for each domain and stakeholder group were identified. Results: The stakeholders experienced the intervention as supportive in identifying problems and solutions and enabling a dialogue between them. However, the intervention was considered demanding and good relationships between the stakeholders were needed. Facilitating factors were the manual and work sheets which the coordinators were provided with, and the manager being involved early in the return-to-work process. Barriers were the number of on-site meetings, disagreements and conflicts between employees and first-line managers, and symptom severity. Conclusions: Seeing the workplace as an integral part of the intervention by always conducting a three-part meeting enabled a dialogue that can be used to identify and address disagreements, to explain CMD symptoms, and how these can be handled at the workplace. We suggest allocating time towards developing good relationships, provide RCs with training in handling disagreements, and additional knowledge about factors in the employee's psychosocial work environment that can impair or promote health to increase the RCs ability to support the employee and manager. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Common mental disorders are highly prevalent in the working population, affecting about 1 in 5 persons in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. About 30% of those affected have a first period of sick leave. Despite several attempts to reduce the risk of sick leave among employees with common mental disorders, there is a lack of knowledge about effective, preventive interventions which aim to reduce such risks. This protocol describes the design of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of a problem-solving intervention delivered by first-line managers to employees with common mental disorders on the prevention of sick leave during the 12-month follow-up. Methods/design The study applies a two-armed cluster-randomized trial design of a problem-solving intervention conducted in private-sector companies. First-line managers are randomized into intervention- or control groups by computer-generated random numbers, allocation ratio 1:1. Employees are eligible if at risk for future sick leave due to common mental disorders. These are identified by self-reported psychological health measured by the General Health Questionnaire 12-item, cut-off ≥3, or a positive answer to risk of sick leave. The intervention is based on problem-solving principles. It involves the training of the first-line managers who then deliver the intervention to employees identified at risk of sick leave. First-line managers in the control group receives a lecture. Primary outcome is number of registered days of sick leave due to common mental disorders during the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are general health, psychological symptoms, work performance, work ability and psychosocial work environment. A process evaluation will examine the intervention’s reach, fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, satisfaction and context. Research assistants managing the screening procedure, outcome assessors and employees are blinded to randomization and allocation. Discussion The study includes analyses of the intervention’s effectiveness and an alongside process evaluation. Methodological strengths and limitations, for example the risk of selection bias, attrition and risk of contamination are discussed. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04975750 Date of registration: 08/16/2021.

Background: Common mental disorders are highly prevalent in the working population, affecting about 1 in 5 persons in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. About 30% of those affected have a first period of sick leave. Despite several attempts to reduce the risk of sick leave among employees with common mental disorders, there is a lack of knowledge about effective, preventive interventions which aim to reduce such risks. This protocol describes the design of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of a problem-solving intervention delivered by first-line managers to employees with common mental disorders on the prevention of sick leave during the 12-month follow-up.Methods/design: The study applies a two-armed cluster-randomized trial design of a problem-solving intervention conducted in private-sector companies. First-line managers are randomized into intervention- or control groups by computer-generated random numbers, allocation ratio 1:1. Employees are eligible if at risk for future sick leave due to common mental disorders. These are identified by self-reported psychological health measured by the General Health Questionnaire 12-item, cut-off ≥3, or a positive answer to risk of sick leave. The intervention is based on problem-solving principles. It involves the training of the first-line managers who then deliver the intervention to employees identified at risk of sick leave. First-line managers in the control group receives a lecture. Primary outcome is number of registered days of sick leave due to common mental disorders during the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are general health, psychological symptoms, work performance, work ability and psychosocial work environment. A process evaluation will examine the intervention's reach, fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, satisfaction and context. Research assistants managing the screening procedure, outcome assessors and employees are blinded to randomization and allocation.Discussion: The study includes analyses of the intervention's effectiveness and an alongside process evaluation. Methodological strengths and limitations, for example the risk of selection bias, attrition and risk of contamination are discussed.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04975750 Date of registration: 08/16/2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]