PurposeMindfulness has become an important construct in return-to-work (RTW) rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether mindfulness is a predictor for RTW, and to examine the indirect effect of mindfulness on RTW and work ability through quality of life (QOL).MethodsA retrospective study was conducted among 80 former participants (71 females and seven males) from age 24 to 66, in a multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation program (MVRP). Self-report questionnaires were used to measure work status, work ability, QOL, and mindfulness. Demographic data were also collected.ResultsIn the current sample, 47% of participants reported having returned to ordinary work. The majority of the non-working sub-sample reported being in work-related activity or education. A bias-corrected bootstrapping technique was used to examine indirect effects. Results revealed that mindfulness was indirectly related to both RTW and work ability through QOL. There was no significant total effect of mindfulness on work ability or RTW. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of mindfulness on the likelihood that respondents returned to work. None of the independent mindfulness variables (observe, describe, act aware, non-judge, non-react) made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model. The covariates work ability and education level significantly predicted RTW. However, when the data were analyzed after stratification by education level, the “observation” facet of mindfulness made a significant contribution to the model (odds ratio =1.28, confidence interval =1.03–1.59) for “high educated” participants.ConclusionThese data suggest that mindfulness may enhance RTW and work ability through QOL. Furthermore, for “high educated” participants the observation facet of mindfulness significantly predicted RTW.

Objective: The study aims were to investigate whether mindfulness predicts improved work ability after a multifactorial vocational rehabilitation program in Norway and to examine the mediating influence of mindfulness in the relationship between personal health factors and changes in work ability in response to the program. Methods: Seventy-four participants on long-term sick leave completed questionnaires assessing mindfulness, work ability, functional health, psychological functioning, and demographics before and after a 4-6-week multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation program. In addition to a standard logistic regression analysis, a bias-corrected bootstrapping technique was used to test the hypothesized indirect effects. Results: Enhanced mindfulness over the course of the program significantly predicted a positive change in work ability. Furthermore, decreased personal burnout and enhanced selfesteem were both unique predictors of such positive change. Mindfulness mediated the effects of personal burnout and selfesteem on participants' work ability. Increased body responsiveness and sense of mastery, and decreased pain consequences and subjective health complaints, were indirectly related to positive changes in work ability through increased mindfulness. Conclusion: Enhancing mindfulness skills is useful for improving the work ability of Norwegians on long-term sick leave.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare responders and nonresponders in terms of work ability (WA) to a multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation program (MVRP) in Norway. Methods: The WA of 74 participants was tested at baseline and in the final week of a 4-6-week intervention. The participants whose WA increased were defined as WA-responders, whereas participants with no increases or with decreases in their WA after the intervention were defined as WA-nonresponders. Measures of functional health, psychological functioning, and demographics were also collected. Results: Overall, the results of this study indicate that the WA improved and the proportion of participants with poor WA decreased by 26% after the intervention. However, the main outcome of this study was that not all of the participants reported improved WA after the intervention. WA of 43% of the participants did not improve and they were defined as WA-nonresponders, whereas the WA of the other 57% participants improved and they were defined as WA-responders. At baseline, the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of their basic characteristics, whereas there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of pain intensity and sense of mastery variables. Logistic regression analysis identified pain intensity and sense of mastery as significant predictors of WA-response. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation seems effective for some but not all participants. Unfavorable WA responses were more prevalent in participants who reported high pain intensity and low sense of mastery at baseline. It is still a challenge to understand what distinguishes responders from nonresponders to MVRPs; thus, further research is required.