An Implementation Strategy to Improve the Guideline Adherence of Insurance Physicians: a Process Evaluation alongside an Experiment in a Controlled Setting

Background We developed an implementation strategy for the insurance medicine guidelines for depression, which we implemented via a post-graduate course for insurance physicians (IPs). In this study we evaluate the physicians’ experiences of the implementation strategy by measuring the following aspects: recruitment and reach, dose delivered and dose received, satisfaction and expectations, and perceived barriers. Methods Insurance physicians conducting client disability assessments for the Dutch Institute for Employee Benefits Schemes were invited to attend a post-graduate course in implementation of the guidelines for depression in which a controlled experiment was embedded. Data were collected from the participating insurance physicians using questionnaires applied directly after the intervention and at three-month follow-up. Results Of the 797 insurance physicians invited, 42 participated. Reach was 4.7%. The response to the questionnaires was 100%. The participants appraised the implementation strategy with a total score of 7.7 out of 10, and 81% expected to see improvement in their assessments of clients with depression. Physicians were still satisfied with the implementation strategy after three months. Changes in work routines and the time needed to apply the guidelines were perceived as barriers to use of the implementation strategy. Conclusions The reach of the newly developed implementation strategy for the guidelines for depression was poor: only 42 IPs out of 900 invited actually attended the post-graduate course. However, the results show that the implementation strategy worked well in a controlled setting for all participants. They were satisfied with the course and with the tools provided, both immediately after the training program and after three months. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR186

Prognostic factors for staying at work for partially sick-listed workers with subjective health complaints: A prospective cohort study

Examination of prognostic factors for staying at work for long-term sick-listed workers with subjective health complaints (SHC) who partially work in a paid job, and to evaluate whether these factors are comparable with those of workers with other disorders. We used data of 86 partially sick-listed workers with SHC (57 females, 29 males, mean age 47.1 years) and 433 with other disorders (227 females, 206 males, mean age 50.9 years), from an existing prospective cohort study consisting of 2593 workers aged 18–65 years and registered as sick-listed with different health complaints or disorders for at least 84 weeks in the database of the Dutch Social Security Institute. We performed univariable logistic regression analyses (p ≤ 0.157) for all independent variables with the dependent variable staying at work for the workers with SHC. We then performed multivariable logistic regression analyses with forward selection (p ≤ 0.157) and combined the remaining factors in a final, multivariable model (p ≤ 0.05), which we also used for logistic regression analysis in the workers with other disorders. The following factors were significant prognostic factors for staying at work for workers with SHC: full work disability benefits (odds ratio (OR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.01–0.64), good mental health (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.14), positive expectations for staying at work (OR 6.49, 95% CI 2.00–21.09), previous absenteeism for the same health complaint (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10–0.96) and good coping strategies (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04–1.23). For workers with other disorders, full work disability benefits, good mental health and positive expectations for staying at work were also prognostic factors for staying at work. Individual and policy factors seem to be important for staying at work of sick-listed workers with SHC and those with other disorders alike, but several biopsychosocial factors are particularly important for workers with SHC

Predicting return to work after long-term sickness absence with subjective health complaints: A prospective cohort study

Background: Long-term sickness absence results in increased risks of permanent disability and a compromised quality of life. Return to work is an important factor in reducing these risks. Little is known about return to work factors for long-term sick-listed workers with subjective health complaints. The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors for partial or full return to a paid job for at least 28 days for long-term sick-listed workers with subjective health complaints, and to compare these factors with those of workers with other disorders. Methods: Data from a prospective cohort study of 213 participants with subjective health complaints and 1.037 reference participants were used. The participants answered a questionnaire after 84 weeks of sickness absence. Return to work was measured after one and two years. Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed (P ≤ 0.157) for variables per domain with return to work (i.e. demographic, socio-economic and work-related, health-related, and self-perceived ability). Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression analyses with backward selection (P ≤ 0.157) were performed. Remaining factors were combined in a multivariable and final model (P ≤ 0.05). Results: Both for workers with subjective health complaints and for the reference group, non-health-related factors remained statistically significant in the final model. This included receiving a partial or complete work disability benefit (partial: OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26-1.47 and OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.43-1.12; complete: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58 and OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.20) and having a positive self-perceived possibility for return to work (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11 and OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05-1.11). Conclusions: Non-health-related factors seem to be more important than health-related factors in predicting return to work after long-term sickness absence. Receiving a work disability benefit and having negative expectations for return to work seem to complicate return to work most for workers with subjective health complaints. With respect to return to work predictors, workers with subjective health complaints do not differ from the reference group