Towards a New Definition of Return-to-Work Outcomes in Common Mental Disorders from a Multi-Stakeholder Perspective

Objectives: To examine the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the return-to-work (RTW) process regarding the definition of successful RTW outcome after sickness absence related to common mental disorders (CMD's). Methods: A mixed-method design was used: First, we used qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews) to identify a broad range of criteria important for the definition of successful RTW (N = 57). Criteria were grouped into content-related clusters. Second, we used a quantitative approach (online questionnaire) to identify, among a larger stakeholder sample (N = 178), the clusters and criteria most important for successful RTW. Results: A total of 11 clusters, consisting of 52 unique criteria, were identified. In defining successful RTW, supervisors and occupational physicians regarded "Sustainability'' and "At-work functioning" most important, while employees regarded "Sustainability," "Job satisfaction," "Work-home balance,'' and " Mental Functioning" most important. Despite agreement on the importance of certain criteria, considerable differences among stakeholders were observed. Conclusions: Key stakeholders vary in the aspects and criteria they regard as important when defining successful RTW after CMD-related sickness absence. Current definitions of RTW outcomes used in scientific research may not accurately reflect these key stakeholder perspectives. Future studies should be more aware of the perspective from which they aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a RTW intervention, and define their RTW outcomes accordingly

Challenges to international stem cell clinical trials in countries with diverging regulations

This chapter addresses challenges to the organization and conduct of international stem cell clinical trials in a context of regulatory pluralism. Multi-country clinical trial collaborations in stem cell medicine have the potential to speed up clinical developments and to widen access to new treatments among patients. However, the regulatory procedures through which the safety and efficacy of stem cell-based treatments are determined vary widely across countries. Internationally harmonized governance frameworks are not yet in place. In this chapter we show that this high level of regulatory variation and the absence of internationally binding standards for clinical stem cell research present important challenges to multi-country clinical trial collaborations. Four types of challenges will be highlighted. First is the need to inquire into and interact with regulatory procedures and law in multiple countries. Second, the interaction with medical authorities in multiple countries is resulting in a high level of organizational complexity. Third consists of delays, increased costs, and uncertainties that result from nonexistent, unclear, or still emerging regulatory arrangements in different countries. Fourth is that the high level of regulatory variation across countries necessitates far-reaching forms of scientific self-governance, training, and procedural adjustments in participating clinical trial sites. To illustrate this point, the chapter presents a case study of project-internal self-governance and capacity building in the context of a clinical trial infrastructure that is active across the contexts of China, Hong Kong, and the USA. The chapter concludes with a call for the creation of an international support structure that systematically addresses these problems. Five measures that may help to reduce existing difficulties will be introduced