Effectiveness of 'motivational interviewing' on sick leave: a randomized controlled trial in a social insurance setting

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) – a counselling approach offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV) – on return to work (RTW) for individuals sick-listed for ≥8 weeks due to any diagnoses. MI was compared to usual case management and an active control during 12 months of follow-up. Methods In a randomized clinical trial with three parallel arms, participants were randomized to MI (N=257), usual case management (N=266), or an active control group (N=252). MI consisted of two MI sessions while the active control involved two sessions without MI, both were offered in addition to usual case management. The primary outcome was number of sickness absence days based on registry data. Secondary outcomes included time to sustainable RTW, defined as four consecutive weeks without medical benefits. Results The median number of sickness absence days for the MI group was 73 days [interquartile range (IQR) 31–147], 76 days (35–134) for usual care, and 75 days (34–155) for active control. In total 89%, 88% and 86% of the participants, respectively, achieved sustainable RTW. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for time to sustainable RTW was 1.12 (95% CI 0.90–1.40) for MI compared to usual case management and HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.93–1.44) compared to the active control. Conclusions This study did not provide evidence that MI offered by NAV caseworkers to sick-listed individuals was more effective on RTW than usual case management or an active control. Providing MI in this context could be challenging as only half of the MI group received the intervention.publishedVersio

Sick-listed workers’ experiences with motivational interviewing in the return to work process: a qualitative interview study

Background When returning to work after being on long-term sick leave, individuals may experience varying levels of motivation and self-efficacy. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a counseling style that aims to increase motivation towards change, and it may be useful in the return to work (RTW) process. The aim of this study was to explore sick-listed workers’ experiences with MI in the RTW process. Methods This qualitative study was part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of MI on the RTW process, and it was administered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration. Sixteen sick-listed individuals, aged 33–60, participated in semi-structured interviews. All had a sick leave status of 50–100% for at least 8 weeks when interviewed and all had completed 2 MI sessions. The data was analyzed with systematic text condensation. Results Participants’ experiences of the MI sessions were categorized into three themes: (1) relationship with the MI caseworker, (2) normalizing sick leave, and (3) adjusting RTW strategies. The MI sessions were experienced as a positive encounter due to the supportive relationship that was built between the MI caseworker and the sick-listed worker. Being sick listed led to feelings of guilt and stigmatization, but acceptance and support from the MI caseworkers helped normalize the situation for the sick-listed workers. Furthermore, MI sessions allowed for personalized feedback and discussions on adjustments to their RTW strategies. Conclusion Sick-listed workers experienced MI as positive due to the good relationship that developed with the MI caseworker, how this normalized sick leave, and the help they received with adjusting their RTW strategies. Professionals working with individuals attempting to RTW may benefit from using MI as a method for helping sick-listed workers to RTW

Fidelity of a motivational interviewing intervention for improving return to work for people with musculoskeletal disorders

The objective of this study was to conduct a fidelity evaluation of a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention delivered by social insurance caseworkers, in a three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) for improving return to work for people on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders. The caseworkers received six days of MI training, including an intervention manual prior to the trial onset, as well as supervision throughout the trial. The caseworkers recorded 21 MI sessions at regular intervals during the trial. An independent MI analysis center scored the recordings using the MI treatment integrity code (MITI 4). In addition, three experienced MI trainers assessed the adherence to the MI intervention manual on a 1–4 Likert scale and MI competence. Total MITI 4 mean scores were at beginning proficiency levels for two components (global technical, mean 3.0; SD 0.6 and the reflections/questions ratio, mean 1.1; SD 0.2) and under beginning proficiency for two components (global relational, mean 3.2; SD 0.7 and complex question, mean 34.0; SD 21.2). The MI trainers’ assessment showed similar results. The mean adherence score for the MI sessions was 2.96 (SD 0.9). Despite delivering a thorough course and supervision package, most of the caseworkers did not reach proficiency levels of good MI competence during the study. The fidelity evaluation showed that a large amount of training, supervision and practice is needed for caseworkers to become competent MI providers. When planning to implement MI, it is important that thorough consideration is given regarding the resources and the time needed to train caseworkers to provide MI in a social insurance setting

Motivational interviewing in long-term sickness absence: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial followed by qualitative and economic studies

Abstract Background Motivational interviewing (MI), mainly used and shown effective in health care (substance abuse, smoking cessation, increasing exercise and other life style changes), is a collaborative conversation (style) about change that could be useful for individuals having problems related to return to work (RTW). The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of MI on RTW among sick listed persons compared to usual care, in a social security setting. Methods The study is a randomized controlled trial with parallel group design. Individuals between 18 and 60 years who have been sick listed for more than 7 weeks, with a current sick leave status of 50–100%, are identified in the Norwegian National Social Security System and invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are no employment and pregnancy. Included participants are randomly assigned to the MI intervention or one of two control groups. The MI intervention consists of two MI sessions offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Service (NAV), while the comparative arms consist of a usual care group and a group that receives two extra sessions without MI content (to control for attentional bias). The primary outcome measure is the total number of sickness absence days during 12 months after inclusion, obtained from national registers. Secondary outcomes include time until full sustainable return to work, health-related quality of life and mental health status. In addition, a health economic evaluation, a feasibility/process evaluation and qualitative studies will be performed as part of the study. Discussion A previous study has suggested an effect of MI on RTW for sick listed workers with musculoskeletal complaints. The present study will evaluate the effect of MI for all sick listed workers, regardless of diagnosis. The knowledge from this study will potentially be important for policy makers, clinicians and other professionals` practical work. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03212118 (registered July 11, 2017)

Motivational interviewing in long-term sickness absence: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial followed by qualitative and economic studies

Background Motivational interviewing (MI), mainly used and shown effective in health care (substance abuse, smoking cessation, increasing exercise and other life style changes), is a collaborative conversation (style) about change that could be useful for individuals having problems related to return to work (RTW). The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of MI on RTW among sick listed persons compared to usual care, in a social security setting. Methods The study is a randomized controlled trial with parallel group design. Individuals between 18 and 60 years who have been sick listed for more than 7 weeks, with a current sick leave status of 50–100%, are identified in the Norwegian National Social Security System and invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are no employment and pregnancy. Included participants are randomly assigned to the MI intervention or one of two control groups. The MI intervention consists of two MI sessions offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Service (NAV), while the comparative arms consist of a usual care group and a group that receives two extra sessions without MI content (to control for attentional bias). The primary outcome measure is the total number of sickness absence days during 12 months after inclusion, obtained from national registers. Secondary outcomes include time until full sustainable return to work, health-related quality of life and mental health status. In addition, a health economic evaluation, a feasibility/process evaluation and qualitative studies will be performed as part of the study. Discussion A previous study has suggested an effect of MI on RTW for sick listed workers with musculoskeletal complaints. The present study will evaluate the effect of MI for all sick listed workers, regardless of diagnosis. The knowledge from this study will potentially be important for policy makers, clinicians and other professionals` practical work

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation

Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate potential barriers and facilitators for implementing motivational interviewing (MI) as a return to work (RTW) intervention in a Norwegian social insurance setting. Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial involving MI sessions delivered by social insurance caseworkers. The study was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework using focus groups with the caseworkers. MI fidelity was evaluated through audio-recordings of MI sessions and questionnaires to sick-listed participants. Results Lack of co-worker and managerial support, time and place for practicing to further develop MI skills, and a high workload made the MI intervention challenging for the caseworkers. The MI method was experienced as useful, but difficult to master. MI fidelity results showed technical global scores over the threshold for “beginning proficiency” whereas the relational global score was under the threshold. The sick-listed workers reported being satisfied with the MI sessions. Conclusions Despite caseworker motivation for learning and using MI in early follow-up sessions, MI was hard to master and use in practice. Several barriers and facilitators were identified; these should be addressed before implementing MI in a social insurance setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03212118 (registered July 11, 2017)

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Motivational Interviewing as a Return to Work Intervention in a Norwegian Social Insurance Setting: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate potential barriers and facilitators for implementing motivational interviewing (MI) as a return to work (RTW) intervention in a Norwegian social insurance setting. Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial involving MI sessions delivered by social insurance caseworkers. The study was guided by the Reach, Efectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework using focus groups with the caseworkers. MI fdelity was evaluated through audio-recordings of MI sessions and questionnaires to sick-listed participants. Results Lack of co-worker and managerial support, time and place for practicing to further develop MI skills, and a high workload made the MI intervention challenging for the caseworkers. The MI method was experienced as useful, but difcult to master. MI fdelity results showed technical global scores over the threshold for “beginning profciency” whereas the relational global score was under the threshold. The sick-listed workers reported being satisfed with the MI sessions. Conclusions Despite caseworker motivation for learning and using MI in early follow-up sessions, MI was hard to master and use in practice. Several barriers and facilitators were identifed; these should be addressed before implementing MI in a social insurance setting

Effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or a stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management on return to work for people with musculoskeletal disorders: the MI-NAV randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if adding motivational interviewing (MI) or a stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI) to usual case management (UC), reduced sickness absence over 6 months for workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: We conducted a three-arm parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial including 514 employed workers (57% women, median age 49 (range 24-66)), on sick leave for at least 50% of their contracted work hours for ≥7 weeks. All participants received UC. In addition, those randomised to UC+MI were offered two MI sessions from social insurance caseworkers and those randomised to UC+SVAI were offered vocational advice from physiotherapists (participants with low/medium-risk for long-term sickness absence were offered one to two sessions, and those with high-risk were offered three to four sessions). RESULTS: Median sickness absence was 62 days, (95% CI 52 to 71) in the UC arm (n=171), 56 days (95% CI 43 to 70) in the UC+MI arm (n=169) and 49 days (95% CI 38 to 60) in the UC+SVAI arm (n=169). After adjusting for predefined potential confounding factors, the results showed seven fewer days in the UC+MI arm (95% CI -15 to 2) and the UC+SVAI arm (95% CI -16 to 1), compared with the UC arm. The adjusted differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The MI-NAV trial did not show effect on return to work of adding MI or SVAI to UC. The reduction in sickness absence over 6 months was smaller than anticipated, and uncertain due to wide CIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03871712

Effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or a stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management on return to work for people with musculoskeletal disorders: The MI-NAV randomised controlled trial

Source at https://oem.bmj.com/content/80/1/42.Objectives: To evaluate if adding motivational interviewing (MI) or a stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI) to usual case management (UC), reduced sickness absence over 6 months for workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. Methods: We conducted a three-arm parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial including 514 employed workers (57% women, median age 49 (range 24–66)), on sick leave for at least 50% of their contracted work hours for ≥7 weeks. All participants received UC. In addition, those randomised to UC+MI were offered two MI sessions from social insurance caseworkers and those randomised to UC+SVAI were offered vocational advice from physiotherapists (participants with low/medium-risk for long-term sickness absence were offered one to two sessions, and those with high-risk were offered three to four sessions). Results: Median sickness absence was 62 days, (95% CI 52 to 71) in the UC arm (n=171), 56 days (95% CI 43 to 70) in the UC+MI arm (n=169) and 49 days (95% CI 38 to 60) in the UC+SVAI arm (n=169). After adjusting for predefined potential confounding factors, the results showed seven fewer days in the UC+MI arm (95% CI −15 to 2) and the UC+SVAI arm (95% CI −16 to 1), compared with the UC arm. The adjusted differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The MI-NAV trial did not show effect on return to work of adding MI or SVAI to UC. The reduction in sickness absence over 6 months was smaller than anticipated, and uncertain due to wide CIs