Protocol for the atWork trial: a randomised controlled trial of a workplace intervention targeting subjective health complaints

Stakeholders' Role and Actions in the Return-to-Work Process of Workers on Sick-Leave Due to Common Mental Disorders: A Scoping Review

The lack of knowledge regarding the roles and actions of return to work (RTW) stakeholders create confusion and uncertainty about how and when to RTW after experiencing a common mental disorder (CMD). Purpose The purpose of this scoping review is to disentangle the various stakeholders' role and actions in the RTW process of workers on sick-leave due to CMDs. The research question is: What is documented in the existing literature regarding the roles and actions of the identified stakeholders involved in the RTW process of workers on sick-leave due to CMDs? Methods In conducting this scoping review, we followed Arksey and O'Malley's (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005) methodology, consisting of different stages (e.g., charting the data by categorizing key results). Results 3709 articles were screened for inclusion, 243 of which were included for qualitative synthesis. Several RTW stakeholders (n=11) were identified (e.g., workers on sick leave due to CMDs, managers, union representatives, rehabilitation professionals, insurers, return to work coordinators). RTW stakeholders' roles and actions inter- and intra-system were recommended, either general (e.g., know and understand the perspectives of all RTW stakeholders) or specific to an actor (e.g., the return to work coordinator needs to create and maintain a working alliance between all RTW stakeholders). Furthermore, close to 200 stakeholders' actions, spread out on different RTW phases, were recommended for facilitating the RTW process. Conclusions Eleven RTW stakeholders from the work, heath and insurance systems have been identified, as well as their respective roles and actions. Thanks to these results, RTW stakeholders and policy makers will be able to build practical relationships and collaboration regarding the RTW of workers on sick leave due to CMDs.

Effect of Reassuring Information About Musculoskeletal and Mental Health Complaints at the Workplace: A Cluster Randomized Trial of the atWork Intervention

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible difference between the Modified atWork intervention (MAW) and the Original atWork intervention (OAW) on sick leave and other health related outcomes. atWork is a group intervention using the workplace as an arena for distribution of evidence-based knowledge about musculoskeletal and mental health complaints. Methods A cluster randomized controlled trial with 93 kindergartens, comprising a total of 1011 employees, was conducted. Kindergartens were stratified by county and size and randomly allocated to MAW (45 clusters, 324 respondents) or OAW (48 clusters, 313 respondents). The randomization and intervention allocation processes were concealed. There was no blinding to group allocation. Primary outcome was register data on sick leave at cluster level. Secondary outcomes were health complaints, job satisfaction, social support, coping, and beliefs about musculoskeletal and mental health complaints, measured at the individual level. Results The MAW group reduced sick leave by 5.7% during the intervention year, while the OAW group had a 7.5% increase. Overall, the changes were not statistically significant, and no difference was detected between groups, based on 45 and 47 kindergartens. Compared to the OAW group, the MAW group had a smaller reduction for two of the statements concerning faulty beliefs about back pain, but believed less in the hereditary nature of depression. Conclusions The MAW did not have a different effect on sick leave at cluster level compared to the OAW. Trial registration https://Clinicaltrials.gov/ : NCT02396797. Registered March 23th, 2015.

Workplace inclusion of employees with back pain and mental health problems: A focus group study about employees' experiences

Aim: To explore how employees experience workplace inclusion of their colleagues or themselves when having back pain or mental health problems. Methods: Three focus group interviews with a sample of 16 kindergarten employees were conducted. Systematic Text Condensation was used for analysis. Results: The participants emphasized that it was easier to include colleagues whose health problems were specific, especially when they were open about having problems and expressed their needs for accommodation clearly. Discussions revealed difficulties of acceptance and accommodating colleagues with longstanding health problems, when the burden on the other staff members was heavy, and if it had negative consequences for the kindergarten children. Some of the participants had experienced health problems themselves, which was also described as challenging. Having health problems at work often induced feelings of guilt, being a burden to their colleagues, and experiencing a disparity between the ideals and the realities of inclusion practices. Conclusions: Workplace inclusion of employees is difficult when their health problems are unspecific, longstanding, and lead to negative consequences for children or colleagues. System level efforts are necessary to reduce negative stereotypes about employees with health problems and facilitate inclusion practices.

Directive and nondirective social support in the workplace - is this social support distinction important for subjective health complaints, job satisfaction, and perception of job demands and job control?

AIMS

Social support is associated with well-being and positive health outcomes. However, positive outcomes of social support might be more dependent on the way support is provided than the amount of support received. A distinction can be made between directive social support, where the provider resumes responsibility, and nondirective social support, where the receiver has the control. This study examined the relationship between directive and nondirective social support, and subjective health complaints, job satisfaction and perception of job demands and job control.

METHODS

A survey was conducted among 957 Norwegian employees, working in 114 private kindergartens (mean age 40.7 years, SD = 10.5, 92.8% female), as part of a randomized controlled trial. This study used only baseline data. A factor analysis of the Norwegian version of the Social Support Inventory was conducted, identifying two factors: nondirective and directive social support. Hierarchical regression analyses were then performed.

RESULTS

Nondirective social support was related to fewer musculoskeletal and pseudoneurological complaints, higher job satisfaction, and the perception of lower job demands and higher job control. Directive social support had the opposite relationship, but was not statistically significant for pseudoneurological complaints.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that for social support to be positively related with job characteristics and subjective health complaints, it has to be nondirective. Directive social support was not only without any association, but had a significant negative relationship with several of the variables. Nondirective social support may be an important factor to consider when aiming to improve the psychosocial work environment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02396797. Registered 23 March 2015.