The concept of work ability is not clearly defined although it has a central place in vocational rehabilitation. Several health professions are involved in assessing work ability, physicians and occupational therapists are two of these. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to explore occupational therapist and physician views about work ability and experiences in assessing work ability. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen physicians and 23 occupational therapists participated in seven focus group discussions that were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. METHODS: Qualitative content analysis was used. Each author performed an individual preliminary analysis. These analyses were later discussed and refined in the research team and a workshop. The final categorization resulted in one theme, four categories and 13 sub-categories. RESULTS:The overall theme expressed work ability as an obscure, complex and unique concept. The four categories illustrate the affecting factors and confirm the complex structure of work ability: the person, the context of life, the work, and the society. Physicians expressed greater difficulty in assessing work ability than occupational therapists did, because they have fewer instruments to access this concept. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of work ability requires team cooperation with several different professionals. Cooperation could increase accuracy in issuing sickness certification and strengthens the ability of identifying individual requirements for rehabilitation.

Background Stress-induced exhaustion disorder (SED) is a primary cause for sickness absence among persons with mental health disorders in Sweden. Interventions involving the workplace, and supporting communication between the employee and the supervisor, are proposed to facilitate return to work (RTW). The aim of this study was to explore experiences of persons with SED who participated in a dialogue-based workplace intervention with a convergence dialogue meeting performed by a rehabilitation coordinator. Methods A qualitative design based on group interviews with 15 persons with SED who participated in a 24-week multimodal rehabilitation program was used. The interviews were analyzed with the methodology of grounded theory. Results The analysis resulted in a theoretical model where the core category, restoring confidence on common ground, represented a health promoting process that included three phases: emotional entrance, supportive guidance, and empowering change. The health promoting process was represented in participant experiences of personal progress and safety in RTW. Conclusions The intervention built on a health-promoting pedagogy, supported by continuous guidance from a rehabilitation coordinator and structured convergence dialogue meetings that enhanced common communication and collaboration with the supervisor and others

Healthcare professionals can facilitate sick-listed persons' rehabilitation back to work by providing a clear structure in the process and support in occupational balance. The healthcare encounters must build on a mutual trust.

Our study indicates a need for increased knowledge about the descriptions of functioning for sick-listed persons; more cooperation between health professionals in primary health care and a better gender awareness in health care encounters.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) have expressed difficulties in issuing sickness certificates and problems may arise if this work is not performed in an adequate manner. There is scant knowledge about how collaboration with other professions could be organized to enhance this work. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the feasibility of occupational therapists (OTs) performing supplementary assessments for persons on sick leave. METHODS: Four healthcare centres (HCs) tested a working approach intervention where sick-listed patients were offered a complementary occupational therapy assessment. The OT assessments were intended to provide useful information for GP issued extended sickness certificates. Data on sick leave, sickness certificates and patient questionnaires were collected at different HCs. Interviews were conducted with GPs and OTs and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to analyse the intervention's implementation. RESULTS: No major differences in the sickness certificate quality was found. Available data on sick leave increased for all HCs during the project. Not all GPs used the OT assessments, which indicates that the implementation of the intervention was insufficient. CONCLUSION: Testing a new working approach in primary healthcare requires an implementation strategy. To improve sickness certification quality, this work needs to be prioritized as an important healthcare task.