A Participatory Workplace Intervention for Employees With Distress and Lost Time: A Feasibility Evaluation Within a Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Introduction Little is known about feasibility and acceptability of return to work (RTW) interventions for mental health problems. RTW for mental health problems is more complicated than for musculoskeletal problems due to stigmatization at the workplace. A participatory workplace intervention was developed in which an employee and supervisor identify and prioritize obstacles and solutions for RTW guided by a RTW coordinator. This paper is a feasibility study of this innovative intervention for employees with distress. The aims of this study were to describe the reach and extent of implementation of the workplace intervention, the satisfaction and expectations of all stakeholders, and the intention to use the workplace intervention in the future. Methods Eligible for this study were employees who had been on sick leave from regular work for 2-8 weeks with distress. Data were collected from the employees, their supervisors, RTW coordinators, and occupational physicians by means of standardized matrices and questionnaires at baseline and 3 months follow-up. Reach, implementation, satisfaction, expectations, and maintenance regarding the workplace intervention were described. Results Of the 56 employees with distress eligible to receive the workplace intervention, 40 employees, their supervisors and RTW coordinators actually participated in the intervention. They identified 151 obstacles for RTW mostly related to job design, communication, mental workload and person-related stress factors. The 281 consensus-based solutions identified were mostly related to job design, communication and training. Of those solutions, 72% was realized at the evaluation with the employee and supervisor. Overall, employees, supervisors and occupational health professionals were satisfied with the workplace intervention and occupational health professionals rated it with a 7.1. Timeinvestment was the only barrier for implementation reported by the occupational health professionals. Conclusions The results of this study indicate a high feasibility for a broad implementation of a participatory workplace intervention for employees with distress and lost time, and their supervisors.

Economic evaluation of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress

“…In the third meeting, which was generally the longest, the employee, supervisor and RTW coordinator discussed solutions and formulated a consensus-based plan for their implementation. The mean total duration of the three meetings was 3 h and 45 min 19. The complete workplace intervention took the RTW coordinator 7 h, including the time needed for organisation and administration.…”

“…The median time invested by RTW coordinators was 7 h19 and this was multiplied by the fee for 1 h of a company social worker. The costs of the work adaptations were not registered because most work adaptations were organisational changes in the workplace, the costs of which are difficult to estimate.…”

A workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress: results of a randomised controlled trial

“…In a recent publication, workplace intervention for employees with distress was evaluated as being feasible 16. Employees and supervisors were able to identify obstacles related to mental workload, stress and communication, to discuss them and to find solutions for these obstacles.…”

Retorno ao trabalho de professores após afastamentos por transtornos mentais

“…It can be understood according to a number of perspectives (Krause et al, 2001;Young et al, 2005) and, in this study, teachers defined it from their previous experiences of MBD and returning to school. Some authors theorize and or make proposals of interventions on returning to work to adopt quantitative measures such as, the duration of the absence from work, and the time to return to the usual work activities prior to the sick leave, or the time spent for the adoption of effective strategies to remain at work (Krause et al, 2001;Oostrom et al, 2009;Brouwer et al, 2010). Other authors studied the social organization as an intervening aspect in the return to work process (Brown; Gilmour; Macdonald, 2006;Stahl et al, 2010).…”

“…This is particularly important when considering teachers to other occupational groups (Souza;Leite, 2011;Oostrom et al, 2009;D'Amato;Zijlstra, 2010;Cornelius et al, 2010;Hoefsmit;Houkes;Nijhuis, 2012;Fischer, 2012).…”