Development and feasibility of an intervention featuring individual supported work placements to aid return to work for unemployed people living with chronic pain

Individual supported work placements (ReISE) for improving sustained return to work in unemployed people with persistent pain: an internal pilot study of a cohort randomised controlled approach

BACKGROUND

Persistent pain is a frequent cause of sick leave and work disability in Norway. A return-to-work intervention featuring supported work placements, developed in the UK, demonstrated feasibility, and a return-to-work rate of 20% within 6 months was observed in the sample. We sought to adapt the intervention for delivery in Norway and to confirm feasibility prior to a full-scale trial.

METHODS

In this internal pilot, we used a pragmatic cohort randomised controlled approach with national recruitment in Norway. We recruited people who were unemployed (for at least 1 month), having persistent pain (for at least 3 months), aged between 18 and 64, and wanting to return to work. We initially recruited people to an observational cohort study of the impact of being unemployed with persistent pain. After baseline measurement, we randomly sub-sampled participants to whom we offered the intervention, which featured individual case management and support, work-familiarisation sessions, and the offer of a 6-week part-time unpaid work placement. We assessed recruitment rates (aiming to recruit 66, and sub-sample 17 within 6 months); optimal recruitment pathways; intervention acceptance rates; the feasibility of data collection; using video links for work-familiarisation sessions and remote case manager support.

RESULTS

The pilot ran from June to November 2022. Of 168 people expressing interest, 94 consented. Recruitment posts on Facebook yielded the most 'expressions of interest' (66%, n = 111). After screening for eligibility, we included 55 participants. Of these, 19 were randomised to be offered the intervention. Of these, less than half (n = 8) consented to intervention participation. Remote case manager and work-familiarisation sessions appeared feasible. Following a delay in identifying placements, three participants received offers of work placements, with one starting and completing during the pilot period. Data collection methods were feasible, and no adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment and logistical processes, such as remote management by video link, are feasible. However, delivery of the intervention is challenging. In particular, sourcing placements and the time required for identifying appropriate placements was more challenging than anticipated. A full-scale trial is feasible but will require improvements to the placement identification processes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN85437524 (Referring to the ReISE trial, of which this internal pilot was a part), Registered 31 of May 2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN85437524 TRIAL FUNDING: Norwegian Research Council.

Individual supported work placements (ReISE) for improving sustained return to work in unemployed people with persistent pain: study protocol for a cohort randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations

BACKGROUND

Around one-third of workdays lost in Norway are due to musculoskeletal conditions, with persistent (chronic) pain being the most frequent cause of sick leave and work disability. Increasing work participation for people with persistent pain improves their health, quality of life, and well-being and reduces poverty; however, it is not clear how to best help unemployed people who have persistent pain to return to work. The aim of this study is to examine if a matched work placement intervention featuring case manager support and work-focused healthcare improves return to work rates and quality of life for unemployed people in Norway with persistent pain who want to work.

METHODS

We will use a cohort randomised controlled approach to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a matched work placement intervention featuring case manager support and work-focused healthcare compared to those receiving usual care in the cohort alone. We will recruit people aged 18-64, who have been out of work for at least 1 month, had pain for more than 3 months, and want to work. Initially, all (n = 228) will be recruited to an observational cohort study on the impact of being unemployed with persistent pain. We will then randomly select one in three to be offered the intervention. The primary outcome of sustained return to work will be measured using registry and self-reported data, while secondary outcomes include self-reported levels of health-related quality of life and physical and mental health. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomisation. We will run a process evaluation parallel to the intervention exploring implementation, continuity of the intervention, reasons for participating, declining participation, and mechanisms behind cases of sustained return to work. An economic evaluation of the trial process will also be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The ReISE intervention is designed to increase work participation for people with persistent pain. The intervention has the potential to improve work ability by collaboratively navigating obstacles to working. If successful, the intervention may be a viable option for helping people in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry 85,437,524 Registered on 30 March 2022.

A pilot trial investigating the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of Individualised Placement and Support for people unemployed with chronic pain recruiting in primary care

BACKGROUND

We investigated the feasibility of recruiting patients unemployed for more than 3 months with chronic pain using a range of methods in primary care in order to conduct a pilot trial of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) to improve quality of life outcomes for people with chronic pain.

METHODS

This research was informed by people with chronic pain. We assessed the feasibility of identification and recruitment of unemployed patients; the training and support needs of employment support workers to integrate with pain services; acceptability of randomisation, retention through follow-up and appropriate outcome measures for a definitive trial. Participants randomised to IPS received integrated support from an employment support worker and a pain occupational therapist to prepare for, and take up, a work placement. Those randomised to Treatment as Usual (TAU) received a bespoke workbook, delivered at an appointment with a research nurse not trained in vocational rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Using a range of approaches, recruitment through primary care was difficult and resource-intensive (1028 approached to recruit 37 eligible participants). Supplementing recruitment through pain services, another 13 people were recruited (total n = 50). Randomisation to both arms was acceptable: 22 were allocated to IPS and 28 to TAU. Recruited participants were generally not 'work ready', particularly if recruited through pain services.

CONCLUSION

A definitive randomised controlled trial is not currently feasible for recruiting through primary care in the UK. Although a trial recruiting through pain services might be possible, participants could be unrepresentative in levels of disability and associated health complexities. Retention of participants over 12 months proved challenging, and methods for reducing attrition are required. The intervention has been manualised.

The effects of supported employment interventions in populations of people with conditions other than severe mental health: a systematic review

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of supported employment interventions for improving competitive employment in populations of people with conditions other than only severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND

Supported employment interventions have been extensively tested in severe mental illness populations. These approaches may be beneficial outside of these populations.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, PEDro, OTSeeker, and NIOSHTIC for trials including unemployed people with any condition and including severe mental illness if combined with other co-morbidities or other specific circumstances (e.g., homelessness). We excluded trials where inclusion was based on severe mental illness alone. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias (RoB v2.0) and four reviewers extracted data. We assessed rates of competitive employment as compared to traditional vocational rehabilitation or waiting list/services as usual.

FINDINGS

Ten randomised controlled trials (913 participants) were included. Supported employment was more effective than control interventions for improving competitive employment in seven trials: in people with affective disorders [risk ratio (RR) 10.61 (1.49, 75.38)]; mental disorders and justice involvement [RR 4.44 (1.36,14.46)]; veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [RR 2.73 (1.64, 4.54)]; formerly incarcerated veterans [RR 2.17 (1.09, 4.33)]; people receiving methadone treatment [RR 11.5 (1.62, 81.8)]; veterans with spinal cord injury at 12 months [RR 2.46 (1.16, 5.22)] and at 24 months [RR 2.81 (1.98, 7.37)]; and young people not in employment, education, or training [RR 5.90 (1.91-18.19)]. Three trials did not show significant benefits from supported employment: populations of workers with musculoskeletal injuries [RR 1.38 (1.00, 1.89)]; substance abuse [RR 1.85 (0.65, 5.41)]; and formerly homeless people with mental illness [RR 1.55 (0.76, 3.15)]. Supported employment interventions may be beneficial to people from more diverse populations than those with severe mental illness alone. Defining competitive employment and increasing (and standardising) measurement of non-vocational outcomes may help to improve research in this area.