Designing a workplace return-to-work program for occupational low back pain: an intervention mapping approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite over 2 decades of research, the ability to prevent work-related low back pain (LBP) and disability remains elusive. Recent research suggests that interventions that are focused at the workplace and incorporate the principals of <it>participatory ergonomics </it>and return-to-work (RTW) coordination can improve RTW and reduce disability following a work-related back injury. Workplace interventions or programs to improve RTW are difficult to design and implement given the various individuals and environments involved, each with their own unique circumstances. Intervention mapping provides a framework for designing and implementing complex interventions or programs. The objective of this study is to design a best evidence RTW program for occupational LBP tailored to the Ontario setting using an intervention mapping approach.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used a qualitative synthesis based on the intervention mapping methodology. Best evidence from systematic reviews, practice guidelines and key articles on the prognosis and management of LBP and improving RTW was combined with theoretical models for managing LBP and changing behaviour. This was then systematically operationalized into a RTW program using consensus among experts and stakeholders. The RTW Program was further refined following feedback from nine focus groups with various stakeholders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A detailed five step RTW program was developed. The key features of the program include; having trained personnel coordinate the RTW process, identifying and ranking barriers and solutions to RTW from the perspective of all important stakeholders, mediating practical solutions at the workplace and, empowering the injured worker in RTW decision-making.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Intervention mapping provided a useful framework to develop a comprehensive RTW program tailored to the Ontario setting.</p

Multidisciplinary outpatient care program for patients with chronic low back pain: design of a randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study [ISRCTN28478651]

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a major public and occupational health problem, which is associated with very high costs. Although medical costs for chronic LBP are high, most costs are related to productivity losses due to sick leave. In general, the prognosis for return to work (RTW) is good but a minority of patients will be absent long-term from work. Research shows that work related problems are associated with an increase in seeking medical care and sick leave. Usual medical care of patients is however, not specifically aimed at RTW.</p> <p>The objective is to present the design of a randomized controlled trial, i.e. the BRIDGE-study, evaluating the effectiveness in improving RTW and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary outpatient care program situated in both primary and outpatient care setting compared with usual clinical medical care for patients with chronic LBP.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The design is a randomized controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside. The study population consists of patients with chronic LBP who are completely or partially sick listed and visit an outpatient clinic of one of the participating hospitals in Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Two interventions will be compared. 1. a multidisciplinary outpatient care program consisting of a workplace intervention based on participatory ergonomics, and a graded activity program using cognitive behavioural principles. 2. usual care provided by the medical specialist, the occupational physician, the patient's general practitioner and allied health professionals. The primary outcome measure is sick leave duration until full RTW. Sick leave duration is measured monthly by self-report during one year. Data on sick leave during one-year follow-up are also requested form the employers. Secondary outcome measures are pain intensity, functional status, pain coping, patient satisfaction and quality of life. Outcome measures are assessed before randomization and 3, 6, and 12 months later. All statistical analysis will be performed according to the intension-to-treat principle.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Usual care of primary and outpatient health services isn't directly aimed at RTW, therefor it is desirable to look for care which is aimed at RTW. Research shows that several occupational interventions in primary care are aimed at RTW. They have shown a significant reduction of sick leave for employee with LBP. If a comparable reduction of sick leave duration of patients with chronic LBP of who attend an outpatient clinic can be achieved, such reductions will be obviously substantial for the Netherlands and will have a considerable impact.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN28478651</p

Work and Health, a Blind Spot in Curative Healthcare? A Pilot Study

Introduction Most workers with musculoskeletal disorders on sick leave often consult with regular health care before entering a specific work rehabilitation program. However, it remains unclear to what extent regular healthcare contributes to the timely return to work (RTW). Moreover, several studies have indicated that it might postpone RTW. There is a need to establish the influence of regular healthcare on RTW as outcome; “Does visiting a regular healthcare provider influence the duration of sickness absence and recurrent sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders?”. Methods A cohort of workers on sick leave for 2–6 weeks due to a-specific musculoskeletal disorders was followed for 12 months. The main outcomes for the present analysis were: duration of sickness absence till 100% return to work and recurrent sick leave after initial RTW. Cox regression analyses were conducted with visiting a general health practitioner, physical therapist, or medical specialist during the sick leave period as independent variables. Each regression model was adjusted for variables known to influence health care utilization like age, sex, diagnostic group, pain intensity, functional disability, general health perception, severity of complaints, job control, and physical load at work. Results Patients visiting a medical specialist reported higher pain intensity and more functional limitations and also had a worse health perception at start of the sick leave period compared with those not visiting a specialist. Visiting a medical specialist delayed return to work significantly (HR = 2.10; 95%CI 1.43–3.07). After approximately 8 weeks on sick leave workers visiting a physical therapist returned to work faster than other workers. A recurrent episode of sick leave during the follow up quick was initiated by higher pain intensity and more functional limitations at the moment of fully return to work. Visiting a primary healthcare provider during the sickness absence period did not influence the occurrence of a new sick leave period. Conclusion Despite the adjustment for severity of the musculoskeletal disorder, visiting a medical specialist was associated with a delayed full return to work. More attention to the factor ‘labor’ in the regular healthcare is warranted, especially for those patients experiencing substantial functional limitations due to musculoskeletal disorders

Subacute and chronic, non-specific back and neck pain: cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation versus primary care. A randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the industrial world, non-specific back and neck pain (BNP) is the largest diagnostic group underlying sick-listing. For patients with subacute and chronic (= full-time sick-listed for 43 – 84 and 85 – 730 days, respectively) BNP, cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation was compared with primary care. The specific aim was to answer the question: within an 18-month follow-up, will the outcomes differ in respect of sick-listing and number of health-care visits?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After stratification by age (≤ 44/≥ 45 years) and subacute/chronic BNP, 125 Swedish primary-care patients were randomly allocated to cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation (rehabilitation group) or continued primary care (primary-care group). Outcome measures were <it>Return-to-work share </it>(percentage) and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>(hazard ratios) over 18 months, <it>Net days </it>(crude sick-listing days × degree), and the number of <it>Visits </it>(to physicians, physiotherapists etc.) over 18 months and the three component six-month periods. Descriptive statistics, Cox regression and mixed-linear models were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>and <it>Return-to-work chance </it>were equivalent between the groups. <it>Net days </it>and <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods (<it>p </it>< .05). Subacute patients: <it>Return-to-work share </it>was equivalent. <it>Return-to-work chance </it>was significantly greater for the rehabilitation group (hazard ratio 3.5 [95%CI1.001 – 12.2]). <it>Net days </it>were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods and there were 31 days fewer in the third period. <it>Visits </it>showed similar though non-significant differences and there were half as many in the third period. Chronic patients: <it>Return-to-work share, Return-to-work chance </it>and <it>Net days </it>were equivalent. <it>Visits </it>were equivalent over 18 months but tended to decrease more rapidly for the rehabilitation group and there were half as many in the third period (non-significant).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results were equivalent over 18 months. However, there were indications that cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation in the longer run might be superior to primary care. For subacute BNP, it might be superior in terms of sick-listing and health-care visits; for chronic BNP, in terms of health-care visits only. More conclusive results concerning this possible long-term effect might require a longer follow-up.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00488735.</p

Development of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with stress-related mental disorders: Intervention Mapping as a useful tool

Background. To date, mental health problems and mental workload have been increasingly related to long-term sick leave and disability. However, there is, as yet, no structured protocol available for the identification and application of an intervention for stress-related mental health problems at the workplace. This paper describes the structured development, implementation and planning for the evaluation of a return-to-work intervention for sick-listed employees with stress-related mental disorders (SMDs). The intervention is based on an existing successful return-to-work intervention for sick-listed employees with low back pain. Methods. The principles of Intervention Mapping were applied to combine theory and evidence in the development, implementation and planning for the evaluation of a participatory workplace intervention, aimed at an early return-to-work for sick-listed employees with SMDs. All stakeholders were involved in focus group interviews: i.e. employees recently sick-listed with SMDs, supervisors and occupational health professionals. Results. The development of the participatory workplace intervention according to the Intervention Mapping principles resulted in a structured return-to-work intervention, specifically tailored to the needs of sick-listed employees with SMDs. Return-to-work was proposed as a behavioural change, and the Attitude - Social influence - self-Efficacy model was identified as a theoretical framework. Stakeholder involvement in focus group interviews served to enhance the implementation. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Conclusion. Intervention Mapping was found to be a promising method to develop interventions tailored to a specific target group in the field of occupational health. Trial registration. ISRCTN92307123. © 2007 van Oostrom et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd