Back to work: evaluation of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program with emphasis on mental symptoms; A two-year follow up

Fostering Stay at Work After a Period of Disability: A Scoping Review of Occupational Rehabilitation Strategies to Support Workers in the Adoption of Preventive Behaviours

PURPOSE

Based on the theoretical framework of the Model of Preventive Behaviours at Work, the aim of this study was to describe the the occupational rehabilitation strategies the literature reports that support workers who have suffered an occupational injury in adopting preventive behaviours.

METHODS

To conduct this scoping review, we used a systematic methodology in 7 steps : (1) definition of the research question and inclusion/exclusion criteria; (2) scientific and gray literature search; (3) determination of manuscripts' eligibility; (4) extraction and charting of information; (5) quality assessment; (6) interpretation; and (7) knowledge synthesis.

RESULTS

We selected 46 manuscripts of various types (e.g. randomized trials, qualitative studies, governmental documents). Manuscripts were mainly of good or high quality according to our quality assessment. The strategies for coaching, engaging, educating and collaborating were mostly reported in the literature to support the development of the six preventive behaviours during occupational rehabilitation. The results also suggest that heterogeneity exists regarding the specificity of the strategies reported in the literature, which may have hindered our ability to provide rich and detailed descriptions. Literature also mainly describes individually oriented behaviours and reports strategies requiring a low level of worker involvement, which represent issues to adress in future researh projects.

CONCLUSION

The strategies described in this article reprensent concrete levers that occupational rehabilitation professionals can use to support workers in the adoption of preventive behaviours at work on return from having suffered an occupational injury.

Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave

BACKGROUND

To limit long-term sick leave and associated consequences, insurers, healthcare providers and employers provide programmes to facilitate disabled people's return to work. These programmes include a variety of coordinated and individualised interventions. Despite the increasing popularity of such programmes, their benefits remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of return-to-work coordination programmes compared to usual practice in workers at risk for long-term disability.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of return-to-work coordination programmes versus usual practice for workers on sick leave or disability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled workers absent from work for at least four weeks and randomly assigned them to return-to-work coordination programmes or usual practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias from eligible trials. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies from nine countries that enrolled 12,568 workers. Eleven studies focused on musculoskeletal problems, two on mental health and one on both. Most studies (11 of 14) followed workers 12 months or longer. Risk of bias was low in 10 and high in 4 studies, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.We found no benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on return-to-work outcomes.For short-term follow-up of six months, we found no effect on time to return to work (hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.88, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (mean difference (MD) -16.18 work days per year, 95% CI -32.42 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work, that is, regardless of whether they had remained at work until last follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19, very low-quality evidence).For long-term follow-up of 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD -14.84 work days per year, 95% CI -38.56 to 8.88, low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.15, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09, moderate-quality evidence).For very long-term follow-up of longer than 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD 7.00 work days per year, 95% CI -15.17 to 29.17, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02, low-quality evidence).We found only small benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on patient-reported outcomes. All differences were below the minimal clinically important difference (MID).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering return-to-work coordination programmes for workers on sick leave for at least four weeks results in no benefits when compared to usual practice. We found no significant differences for the outcomes time to return to work, cumulative sickness absence, the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up or the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work at short-term, long-term or very long-term follow-up. For patient-reported outcomes, we found only marginal effects below the MID. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate across all outcomes.

Combining garden therapy and supported employment - a method for preparing women on long-term sick leave for working life

Women are overrepresented among the group people suffering from long-term illness. In addition to their illness, suffering long-term sick leave leads to economical restraints as well social distress. There are gaps in our understanding of the challenges these women face. There is also lack of knowledge about how these challenges can be effectively addressed in rehabilitation. This deficiency is problematic from an ethical, justice and a caring perspective. In this study, changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among women on long-term sick leave were investigated during and after participating in a rehabilitation programme combining two validated methods, Garden Therapy and Supported Employment (SE). The study also discusses difficulties in realising research related to vulnerable under-privileged people. From a population of 329 women who had reported their interest to participate, 245 were randomised to the programme. Of these 144 accepted participation in the research project and of these 123 women accepted to answer the SF-36 questionnaire. The participants were between 21 and 62 years with poor physical and mental health. They had received public financial support from <1 year to >10 years. The SF-36 measurement was carried out at baseline, after completion of Garden Therapy and after completion of SE. The results are based on data of respondents who participated at all the three occasions (n = 52). When comparing HRQoL baseline with the following occasions, the participants' General Health (GH), Vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF) and mental health had improved significantly. The Four Leaf Clover (FLC) programme could be an appropriate method for reducing socially induced suffering. However, to conduct intervention studies where vulnerable persons are involved, it is off vital importance to consider whether the participants have the strength to complete the intervention.

Physical functioning after occupational rehabilitation and returning to work among employees with chronic musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depressive symptoms

Background

The aim of this investigation was to assess whether measures of physical functioning after multidisciplinary rehabilitation are associated with return to work among individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions and comorbid depressive symptoms.

Methods

Included were 92 employees with chronic musculoskeletal disorders who had participated in a 57- week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Their ages ranged from 25–59 years. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to assess depressive symptoms. Different aspects of physical functioning (muscle strength, mobility, endurance capacity, and balance) were measured with single-item visual analog scales, and physical fitness was measured with the validated COOP/WONCA charts. Being on “active work strategies,” such as receiving rehabilitation benefit/vocational rehabilitation or being reported partly or completely fit, was defined as “on their way into/in work”. Cross-sectional associations were measured using logistic regression models, estimating odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

There were no differences between the “on their way into/in work” group (n=70) and the “on their way out/out of work” group (n=22) regarding age, sex, or levels of anxiety or pain. Surprisingly, regression analyses showed that those with higher levels of physical functioning had significantly lower odds of returning to work.

Conclusion

The findings of an inverse relationship between self-reported physical function and returning to work in this sample illustrate that the return-to-work process among employees with chronic musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depressive symptoms is multifactorial and influenced by factors other than physical functioning at the individual level. Further research, especially longitudinal studies, is needed to assess the occupational trajectories among employees with chronic musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depressive symptoms after participation in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program.