Collaborative case management to aid return to work after long-term sickness absence: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Using intervention mapping to develop evidence-based toolkits that support workers on long-term sick leave and their managers

BACKGROUND

Managing long-term sickness absence is challenging in countries where employers and managers have the main responsibility to provide return to work support, particularly for workers with poor mental health. Whilst long-term sick leave and return to work frameworks and guidance exist for employers, there are currently no structured return to work protocols for employers or for their workers encompassing best practice strategies to support a positive and timely return to work outcome.

PURPOSE

To utilise the intervention mapping (IM) protocol as a framework to develop return to work toolkits that are underpinned by relevant behaviour change theory targeting mental health to promote a positive return to work experiensce for workers on long-term sick leave.

METHODS

This paper provides a worked example of intervention mapping (IM) to develop an intervention through a six-step process to combine theory and evidence in the development of two toolkits - one designed for managers and one to be used by workers on long-term sick leave. As part of this process, collaborative planning techniques were used to develop the intervention. A planning group was set up, through which researchers would work alongside employer, worker, and mental health professional representatives to develop the toolkits. Additionally, feedback on the toolkits were sought from the target populations of workers and managers and from wider employer stakeholders (e.g., human resource specialists). The implementation and evaluation of the toolkits as a workplace intervention were also planned.

RESULTS

Two toolkits were designed following the six steps of intervention mapping. Feedback from the planning group (n = 5; psychologist, psychiatrist, person with previous experience of poor mental health, employer and charity worker) and participants (n = 14; employers = 3, wellbeing director = 1; human resources = 2, managers = 2, employees with previous experience of poor mental health = 5) target populations indicated that the toolkits were acceptable and much needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Using IM allowed the development of an evidence-based practical intervention, whilst incorporating the views of all the impacted stakeholder groups. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkits and their supporting intervention components, implementation process and methods of assessment will be evaluated in a feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial.

Developing and testing a case-management intervention to support the return to work of health care workers with common mental health disorders

BACKGROUND

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new case-management intervention to facilitate the return to work of health care workers, on sick leave, having a common mental disorder (CMD).

METHODS

A mixed methods feasibility study.

RESULTS

Systematic review examined 40 articles and 2 guidelines. Forty-nine National Health Service Occupational Health (OH) providers completed a usual care survey. We trained six OH nurses as case managers and established six recruitment sites. Forty-two out of 1938 staff on sick leave with a CMD were screened for eligibility, and 24 participants were recruited. Out of them, 94% were female. Eleven participants received the intervention and 13 received usual care. Engagement with most intervention components was excellent. Return-to-work self-efficacy improved more in the intervention group than in the usual care group. Qualitative feedback showed the intervention was acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was acceptable, feasible and low cost to deliver, but it was not considered feasible to recommend a large-scale effectiveness trial unless an effective method could be devised to improve the early OH referral of staff sick with CMD. Alternatively, the intervention could be trialled as a new stand-alone OH intervention initiated at the time of usual OH referral.

Case Management and Telehealth: A Scoping Review

Background: Case management (CM) is an intervention adapted to the needs of patients with chronic conditions or complex needs. Factors associated with effectiveness of CM, such as high intervention intensity, can represent challenges to its implementation. Telehealth has the potential to help overcome these challenges, but little work has been done to synthesize available evidence on telehealth CM. The purpose of this scoping review was thus to fill this gap and document which telehealth modalities have been used, summarize perspectives of key users, and discuss evidence on effectiveness of telehealth-delivered CM. Methods: A search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL for articles published between January 2005 and January 2021 was done. Studies in which telehealth was used for patient-case manager interaction and conducted in a population with complex health needs and/or chronic conditions were included. Articles selected for full-text review were independently screened by two reviewers. Data extraction was conducted once and validated by a second reviewer. Results: Of 3,108 articles, 22 were retained for data extraction. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Most studies evaluated CM interventions delivered over telephone, yet, literature suggests that face-to-face contact is essential to CM success. Results also indicate that telehealth CM is acceptable and effective, associated with better utilization of health services and favorable clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Lack of research evaluating telehealth CM delivered using modalities other than telephone. Further research should evaluate CM interventions that integrate platforms enabling visual information exchange.

A case management occupational health model to facilitate earlier return to work of NHS staff with common mental health disorders: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The NHS is the biggest employer in the UK. Depression and anxiety are common reasons for sickness absence among staff. Evidence suggests that an intervention based on a case management model using a biopsychosocial approach could be cost-effective and lead to earlier return to work for staff with common mental health disorders.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an early occupational health referral and case management intervention to facilitate the return to work of NHS staff on sick leave with any common mental health disorder (e.g. depression or anxiety).

DESIGN

A multicentre mixed-methods feasibility study with embedded process evaluation and economic analyses. The study comprised an updated systematic review, survey of care as usual, and development of an intervention in consultation with key stakeholders. Although this was not a randomised controlled trial, the study design comprised two arms where participants received either the intervention or care as usual.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were NHS staff on sick leave for 7 or more consecutive days but less than 90 consecutive days, with a common mental health disorder.

INTERVENTION

The intervention involved early referral to occupational health combined with standardised work-focused case management.

CONTROL/COMPARATOR

Participants in the control arm received care as usual.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, study processes (including methods of recruiting participants) and data collection tools to measure return to work, episodes of sickness absence, workability (a worker's functional ability to perform their job), occupational functioning, symptomatology and cost-effectiveness proposed for use in a main trial.

RESULTS

Forty articles and two guidelines were included in an updated systematic review. A total of 49 of the 126 (39%) occupational health providers who were approached participated in a national survey of care as usual. Selected multidisciplinary stakeholders contributed to the development of the work-focused case management intervention (including a training workshop). Six NHS trusts (occupational health departments) agreed to take part in the study, although one trust withdrew prior to participant recruitment, citing staff shortages. At mixed intervention sites, participants were sequentially allocated to each arm, where possible. Approximately 1938 (3.9%) NHS staff from the participating sites were on sick leave with a common mental health disorder during the study period. Forty-two sick-listed NHS staff were screened for eligibility on receipt of occupational health management referrals. Twenty-four (57%) participants were consented: 11 (46%) received the case management intervention and 13 (54%) received care as usual. Follow-up data were collected from 11 out of 24 (46%) participants at 3 months and 10 out of 24 (42%) participants at 6 months. The case management intervention and case manager training were found to be acceptable and inexpensive to deliver. Possible contamination issues are likely in a future trial if participants are individually randomised at mixed intervention sites.

HARMS

No adverse events were reported.

LIMITATIONS

The method of identification and recruitment of eligible sick-listed staff was ineffective in practice because uptake of referral to occupational health was low, but a new targeted method has been devised.

CONCLUSION

All study questions were addressed. Difficulties raising organisational awareness of the study coupled with a lack of change in occupational health referral practices by line managers affected the identification and recruitment of participants. Strategies to overcome these barriers in a main trial were identified. The case management intervention was fit for purpose and acceptable to deliver in the NHS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14621901.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.