Relative contribution of various chronic diseases and multi-morbidity to potential disability among Dutch elderly

BACKGROUND: The amount of time spent living with disease greatly influences elderly people’s wellbeing, disability and healthcare costs, but differs by disease, age and sex. METHODS: We assessed how various single and combined diseases differentially affect life years spent living with disease in Dutch elderly men and women (65+) over their remaining life course. Multistate life table calculations were applied to age and sex-specific disease prevalence, incidence and death rates for the Netherlands in 2007. We distinguished congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), breast and prostate cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, diabetes, COPD, stroke, dementia and osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Across ages 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85, CHD caused the most time spent living with disease for Dutch men (from 7.6 years at age 65 to 3.7 years at age 85) and osteoarthritis for Dutch women (from 11.7 years at age 65 to 4. 8 years at age 85). Of the various co-occurrences of disease, the combination of diabetes and osteoarthritis led to the most time spent living with disease, for both men (from 11.2 years at age 65 to 4.9 -years at age 85) and women (from 14.2 years at age 65 to 6.0 years at age 85). CONCLUSIONS: Specific single and multi-morbid diseases affect men and women differently at different phases in the life course in terms of the time spent living with disease, and consequently, their potential disability. Timely sex and age-specific interventions targeting prevention of the single and combined diseases identified could reduce healthcare costs and increase wellbeing in elderly people

A Participatory Return-to-Work Program for Temporary Agency Workers and Unemployed Workers Sick-Listed Due to Musculoskeletal Disorders: a Process Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction Beside (cost-)effectiveness, the feasibility of an intervention is important for successful implementation in daily practice. This study concerns the process evaluation of a newly developed participatory return-to-work (RTW) program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders. The program consisted of a stepwise process, guided by an independent RTW coordinator, aimed at making a consensus-based RTW plan with the possibility of a temporary (therapeutic) workplace. The aims of this study were to describe the reach and extent of implementation of the new program, the satisfaction and experiences of all stakeholders, and the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of the program in daily practice. Methods Temporary agency workers and unemployed workers, sick-listed for 2–8 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders were eligible for this study. Data were collected from the workers; their insurance physicians and labour experts at the Dutch Social Security Agency; RTW coordinators; and case managers from participating vocational rehabilitation agencies. Data collection took place using professionals’ reports, standardized matrices, questionnaires at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, and group interviews with the professionals. Results Of the 79 workers who were allocated to the participatory RTW program group, 72 workers actually started with the intervention. Overall, implementation of the program was performed according to protocol. However, offering of suitable temporary workplaces was delayed with 44.5 days. Results showed satisfaction with the RTW coordinator among the workers and three quarters of the labour experts experienced a minor or major contribution of the presence of the RTW coordinator. Several barriers for implementation were identified, such as the administrative time-investment, unclear information about the program, no timely offering of temporary (therapeutic) workplaces, and the need for additional support in case of complex health problems. Conclusions This study indicates overall feasibility for implementation of the participatory RTW program in daily practice. However, to overcome important barriers, more attention should be paid to improve timely offering of suitable temporary workplaces, to describe more clearly the program goals and the professional’s roles, and to offer additional support for workers suffering from complex multi-causal health problems. Trial registration NTR1047

A Participatory Return-to-Work Intervention for Temporary Agency Workers and Unemployed Workers Sick-Listed Due to Musculoskeletal Disorders: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction Within the labour force workers without an employment contract represent a vulnerable group. In most cases, when sick-listed, these workers have no workplace/employer to return to. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness on return-to-work of a participatory return-to-work program compared to usual care for unemployed workers and temporary agency workers, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders. Methods The workers, sick-listed for 2–8 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders, were randomly allocated to the participatory return-to-work program (n = 79) or to usual care (n = 84). The new program is a stepwise procedure aimed at making a consensus-based return-to-work plan, with the possibility of a temporary (therapeutic) workplace. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome measure was time to sustainable first return-to-work. Secondary outcome measures were duration of sickness benefit, functional status, pain intensity, and perceived health. Results The median duration until sustainable first return-to-work was 161 days in the intervention group, compared to 299 days in the usual care group. The new return-to-work program resulted in a non-significant delay in RTW during the first 90 days, followed by a significant advantage in RTW rate after 90 days (hazard ratio of 2.24 [95% confidence interval 1.28–3.94] P = 0.005). No significant differences were found for the measured secondary outcomes. Conclusions The newly developed participatory return-to-work program seems to be a promising intervention to facilitate work resumption and reduce work disability among temporary agency workers and unemployed workers, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders

Cost-effectiveness of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: design of a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Within the working population there is a vulnerable group: workers without an employment contract and workers with a flexible labour market arrangement, e.g. temporary agency workers. In most cases, when sick-listed, these workers have no workplace/employer to return to. Also, for these workers access to occupational health care is limited or even absent in many countries. For this vulnerable working population there is a need for tailor-made occupational health care, including the presence of an actual return-to-work perspective. Therefore, a participatory return-to-work program has been developed based on a successful return-to-work intervention for workers, sick-listed due to low back pain.</p> <p>The objective of this paper is to describe the design of a randomised controlled trial to study the (cost-)effectiveness of this newly developed participatory return-to-work program adapted for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders, compared to usual care.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The design of this study is a randomised controlled trial with one year of follow-up. The study population consists of temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed between 2 and 8 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders. The new return-to-work program is a stepwise program aimed at making a consensus-based return-to-work implementation plan with the possibility of a (therapeutic) workplace to return-to-work. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is duration of the sickness benefit period after the first day of reporting sick. Secondary outcome measures are: time until first return-to-work, total number of days of sickness benefit during follow-up; functional status; intensity of musculoskeletal pain; pain coping; and attitude, social influence and self-efficacy determinants. Cost-benefit is evaluated from an insurer's perspective. A process evaluation is part of this study.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>For sick-listed workers without an employment contract there can be gained a lot by improving occupational health care, including return-to-work guidance, and by minimising the 'labour market handicap' by creating a return-to-work perspective. In addition, reduction of sickness absence and work disability, i.e. a reduction of disability claims, may result in substantial benefits for the Dutch Social Security System.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Trial registration number: NTR1047.</p

Stress factors and stress management interventions: the heuristic of “bottom up” an update from a systematic review

Organizations have increasingly sought to adopt innovative interventions to prevent stress-related issues. In the field of manufacturing, however, the effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear because a systematic and specific review of existing primary evidence has not been undertaken. The present systematic literature review sought to address the foregoing limitation in the literature by summarizing the main source of stress and effectiveness of stress management interventions as grounded in the context of manufacturing. Our review was limited to only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies and concerned employees from the manufacturing sector. Twenty-two studies on primary, secondary and tertiary interventions across four continents (Asia, Europe, USA and South America) were selected and analyzed in terms of stress factors, methodological properties and outcomes. Most of these were RCT studies (68% Vs 32%) with a majority of secondary interventions (N = 11, 50%), followed by primary (N = 5, 22%), tertiary (N = 3, 13%), and two (9%) mixed interventions. The main outcomes included an improvement of psychological wellbeing, decreased stress reactivity and an increment of general health. There was a predominance of interventions utilizing skills programs and/or cognitive-behavioral techniques. The main source of stress reported related to professional identity, organizational deficiencies, interpersonal conflicts, physical complaints and poor work environment. Taken together, the findings provide important theoretical and practical implications for advancing the study of stress factors and the use of stress management interventions in the workplace. The prerequisite for a successful intervention is to address the real problems experienced by professionals and help them to cope with their difficult situations. The strategy of “bottom-up” offers a potential means of enhancing employees’ health and well-being; however, the most effective means of implementing these interventions needs to be understood better

A participatory physical and psychosocial intervention for balancing the demands and resources among industrial workers (PIPPI): study protocol of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background: Need for recovery and work ability are strongly associated with high employee turnover, well-being and sickness absence. However, scientific knowledge on effective interventions to improve work ability and decrease need for recovery is scarce. Thus, the present study aims to describe the background, design and protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce need for recovery and improve work ability among industrial workers. Methods/Design: A two-year cluster randomized controlled design will be utilized, in which controls will also receive the intervention in year two. More than 400 workers from three companies in Denmark will be aimed to be cluster randomized into intervention and control groups with at least 200 workers (at least 9 work teams) in each group. An organizational resources audit and subsequent action planning workshop will be carried out to map the existing resources and act upon initiatives not functioning as intended. Workshops will be conducted to train leaders and health and safety representatives in supporting and facilitating the intervention activities. Group and individual level participatory visual mapping sessions will be carried out allowing team members to discuss current physical and psychosocial work demands and resources, and develop action plans to minimize strain and if possible, optimize the resources. At all levels, the intervention will be integrated into the existing organization of work schedules. An extensive process and effect evaluation on need for recovery and work ability will be carried out via questionnaires, observations, interviews and organizational data assessed at several time points throughout the intervention period. Discussion: This study primarily aims to develop, implement and evaluate an intervention based on the abovementioned features which may improve the work environment, available resources and health of industrial workers, and hence their need for recovery and work ability